Why do GOP candidates keep stumbling on evolution? By Byron York

[Carling]

We discover new forms of life all the time. It's completely possible that is does still occur.

It's also possible that aliens drop off new species from time to time on earth just to mess with our heads.  That's as proven as a theory as abiogenesis.   

Also, are you suggesting that new species just pop up from nowhere?  That's as silly to me as someone saying God placed the new species there.

[Dexter]

Fossil records and DNA are evidence of those species, not how or why they evolved to be those species.

Fossil records and DNA absolutely are evidence of evolution. They have holes because fossilization is a pretty rare phenomenon that makes it difficult to completely fill all of the gaps, but the evidence that is presented by the fossils we do have suggest that evolution is real. If there was no legitimate evidence of evolution it would not be a theory.

[Dexter]

no rational scientist believes that anymore...

False.

[GourmetDan]

We discover new forms of life all the time. It's completely possible that is does still occur.

There is the Argument from Ignorance Fallacy for believing that abiogenesis is true pending unknown future scientific discoveries again...

[Dexter]

Also, are you suggesting that new species just pop up from nowhere? 

I'm suggesting it is possible. Obviously the species that "pop up" would not be advanced. They would be microscopic just like the first forms of life.

[Dexter]

There is the Argument from Ignorance Fallacy for believing that abiogenesis is true pending unknown future scientific discoveries again...

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question.

[GourmetDan]

Fossil records and DNA absolutely are evidence of evolution.

Only if you engage in the fallacy of affirming the consequent is the 'fossil record' and DNA 'evidence of evolution'.

If there was no legitimate evidence of evolution it would not be a theory.

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Richard Lewontin - Geneticist

[GourmetDan]

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question.

And I'm still waiting for you to stop using logical fallacy as argument...

[Carling]

Fossil records and DNA absolutely are evidence of evolution. They have holes because fossilization is a pretty rare phenomenon that makes it difficult to completely fill all of the gaps, but the evidence that is presented by the fossils we do have suggest that evolution is real. If there was no legitimate evidence of evolution it would not be a theory.

The fossils and the DNA are evidence of those species existing.  That's what the evidence is.  How they became as they are is a theory, and one that has yet to be validated even once in recorded history.   

[Carling]

I'm suggesting it is possible. Obviously the species that "pop up" would not be advanced. They would be microscopic just like the first forms of life.

You said new species are found all the time, and you said it in explaining your interpretation of abiogenesis.  You're confusing me.

Quote from: Dex4974 on Today at 08:08:03 PM
We discover new forms of life all the time. It's completely possible that it does still occur.

You were referring to abiogensis, correct?

[Dexter]

You said new species are found all the time, and you said it in explaining your interpretation of abiogenesis. 

I said we discover new species all the time. I didn't say new species pop up out of nowhere all the time. The former is true and the latter is possible.

You're confusing me.

I'm aware.

[Carling]

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Richard Lewontin - Geneticist

That's what I was trying to get at earlier.  Anyone who believes that the fossil record and DNA records are anything other than evidence of that species' existence is attaching their own bias to that evidence.  It's like a creationist saying that the fossil and DNA records are proof that God created each species individually. 

We're living in a dangerous time that I like to call Subjective Science.  The end result is known (supposedly), so experiments and models are created to try and prove the desired result.  Then, when that doesn't happen, of course isn't evidence against their preconceived belief system.  What we get instead is this thread, where when pressured, Evolutionists are forced to explain their beliefs, and then get angry and lash out when the proof just isn't there to sway skeptics.  Again, it's much like the AGW debate and their "Climate Denier" smears.

[Carling]

I said we discover new species all the time. I didn't say new species pop up out of nowhere all the time. The former is true and the latter is possible.

How is abiogensis possible, and what's its role in these new forms of life?  Isn't it also possible that aliens are dropping new life forms here from time to time then, too?  Or a god is creating the new forms of life that are found?

Quote from: Dex4974 on Today at 08:08:03 PM
We discover new forms of life all the time. It's completely possible that it does still occur.

[Dexter]

How is abiogensis possible, and what's its role in these new forms of life?

It's possible because we have absolutely no idea how many different forms of life exist on this planet and therefore have no way of knowing if that number has increased through the creation of new forms of life on a cellular level.

[Carling]

It's possible because we have absolutely no idea how many different forms of life exist on this planet and therefore have no way of knowing if that number has increased through the creation of new forms of life on a cellular level.

See, was that so hard?  That's my entire point I've been making in this thread.   

[Dexter]

See, was that so hard?  That's my entire point I've been making in this thread.   

I know you're confused, but I did not say we are 100% sure of anything in this thread. Your insistence that I am refusing to admit we don't know anything for sure is not consistent with reality. When I said we discover new species all the time it was to imply that we don't know how many species exist on Earth, which creates the possibility of new species beginning their evolutionary path through whatever process created life in the first place. I personally think it's kind of silly to assume the phenomenon of life would only occur once and that it couldn't possibly still be occurring.

[aligncare]

Perhaps when our probes return evidence of primitive microbial life in the relatively warm subsurface seas of Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, we can revisit this discussion.

[Dexter]

Perhaps when our probes return evidence of primitive microbial life in the relatively warm subsurface seas of Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, we can revisit this discussion.

Don't forget Europa. I know it's a long shot but I'm hoping for advanced aquatic life. With a liquid ocean three times the size of all of Earth's oceans it is definitely a possibility.

[Lando Lincoln]

So.

Why do GOP candidates keep stumbling on evolution?     

Yes, might we have gone far afield on the topic?

[Luis Gonzalez]

I mentioned linear evolution and was mocked for two pages of this thread, which included the guy who posts about "Chaos Theory" as if he is treating it as fact.

As for evidence backing the theory of evolution, where is that evidence.  Where has species-to-species evolution been observed, literally, to the point that proves evolution to a level other than it being an educated guess?

I didn't "mock" you, I disagreed with you.

That's not mocking you.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Are you going to respond to the two posts bringing up your example of adaption that you tried to pass off as evolution?  I can guarantee you this, too.  GourmetDan and I are both skeptical, but for very different reasons.  It seems that the Evolutions like to make it a binary debate of creationism vs. evolution, and they ignore the many gray areas when they frame the debate in those terms.

There are posts on this thread that I'm not reading.

Darwin's finches are an accepted example of evolution to those who accept evolution. There are no accepted examples of evolution to those who don't accept evolution.

[Luis Gonzalez]

How is abiogensis possible, and what's its role in these new forms of life?  Isn't it also possible that aliens are dropping new life forms here from time to time then, too?  Or a god is creating the new forms of life that are found?

Abiogenesis is an entirely different topic than evolution.

You just don't seem to grasp that.

Why?

[Dexter]

I think a good example of how animals/plants change form can be seen by looking at how we selectively grow crops and breed animals. We force them to evolve in ways that benefit us, so obviously it is not the same as natural selection, but it demonstrates how preferential breeding changes the form of living organisms over time. In nature this preferential breeding is determined by the natural advantages given to an organism. If a predator was born with a mutation that gave it slightly longer claws and those claws helped it catch more prey it is less likely to starve. Not starving would give it more opportunities to breed. If it breeds a handful of times and a couple of its offspring have the same mutation that gives the same advantage those offspring would also be more likely to be successful hunters and breed more times.

For a prey animal a random mutation might help them defend against a predator. Being better at not getting eaten would give them more opportunities to breed. Some of their offspring would have the same mutation that gave their parent a better chance at survival and they would also escape more predators and breed more times. The same thing goes for plants that get eaten by herbivores. Slowly the beneficial mutation is worked into the genetics of the species through natural selection and the appearance of the organism changes. It's very much common sense when you think about it and actually understand how the process works.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I think a good example of how animals/plants change form can be seen by looking at how we selectively grow crops and breed animals. We force them to evolve in ways that benefit us, so obviously it is not the same as natural selection, but it demonstrates how preferential breeding changes the form of living organisms over time. In nature this preferential breeding is determined by the natural advantages given to an organism. If a predator was born with a mutation that gave it slightly longer claws and those claws helped it catch more prey it is less likely to starve. Not starving would give it more opportunities to breed. If it breeds a handful of times and a couple of its offspring have the same mutation that gives the same advantage those offspring would also be more likely to be successful hunters and breed more times.

For a prey animal a random mutation might help them defend against a predator. Being better at not getting eaten would give them more opportunities to breed. Some of their offspring would have the same mutation that gave their parent a better chance at survival and they would also escape more predators and breed more times. The same thing goes for plants that get eaten by herbivores. Slowly the beneficial mutation is worked into the genetics of the species through natural selection and the appearance of the animal changes. It's very much common sense when you think about it and actually understand how the process works.

We "see" evolution all the time.

Insects developing a resistance to pesticides is an example of evolution.

People who do not believe in evolution will call that "adaptation", but that's not correct. Insects can't adapt to pesticides that kills them, but those that the pesticides don't kill precipitate and/or promote a change in the species driven by the fact that whatever genetic trait they posses which helps them survive becomes a dominant trait in the species as the members of the species lacking that trait are exterminated by the pesticides that they lack the genetic structure to survive.

That's not adaptation, that's evolution.
 
To wit.

Adaptation involves short-term changes to suit the habitat and environment.

Evolution is a long-term process wherein changes occur in the genetic level for a better functioning and survival as a race/species.

[Dexter]

We "see" evolution all the time.

Insects developing a resistance to pesticides is an example of evolution.

People who do not believe in evolution will call that "adaptation", but that's not correct. Insects can't adapt to pesticides that kills them, but those that the pesticides don't kill precipitate and/or promote a change in the species driven by the fact that whatever genetic trait they posses which helps them survive becomes a dominant trait in the species as the members of the species lacking that trait are exterminated by the pesticides that they lack the genetic structure to survive.

That's not adaptation, that's evolution.
 
To wit.

Adaptation involves short-term changes to suit the habitat and environment.

Evolution is a long-term process wherein changes occur in the genetic level for a better functioning and survival as a race/species.