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

[GourmetDan]

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.

Darwin's finches are an example of adaptation, not evolution.

There are no accepted examples of evolution that do not involve logical fallacy...

[GourmetDan]

We "see" evolution all the time.

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

No, that's adaptation.

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.

No, that's not evolution, that's the fallacy of affirming the consequent being applied to observed adaptation.

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.

Adaptation involves changes at the genetic level and happens quite quickly.

Evolution is when believers insist that opponents prove that adaptation can't become evolution over assumed, unobserved timelines.  That is the Negative Proof Fallacy.

[Carling]

No, that's adaptation.

No, that's not evolution, that's the fallacy of affirming the consequent being applied to observed adaptation.

Adaptation involves changes at the genetic level and happens quite quickly.

Evolution is when believers insist that opponents prove that adaptation can't become evolution over assumed, unobserved timelines.  That is the Negative Proof Fallacy.

Obviously there are a few posters on this board who need to read up on the difference between species evolving into new species, and species adapting to their current climate while remaining the same species  I'm a bit embarrassed for Luis Gonzalez, who is so adamant in his belief in this thread, yet is so laughably wrong in his examples.

[GourmetDan]

Obviously there are a few posters on this board who need to read up on the difference between species evolving into new species, and species adapting to their current climate while remaining the same species  I'm a bit embarrassed for Luis Gonzalez, who is so adamant in his belief in this thread, yet is so laughably wrong in his examples.

You have to watch the evos and their definition of 'species'.

Many creatures are considered separate 'species' even though they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.  Dogs, coyotes, wolves, jackals can all interbreed and produce fertile offspring, yet they are considered separate 'species'.  This is not limited to Canids but is observed in other groups.

The evos basically make it up as convenient to address each issue and they aren't consistent at all.

Evolution really is just your basic, observable adaptation with multiple logical fallacies applied as needed...

[olde north church]

I love the Creos who have Fred Flintstone riding dinosaurs.

[GourmetDan]

I love the Creos who have Fred Flintstone riding dinosaurs.

Of course, that simply ignores all of the examples of current living creatures whose fossilized remains are found with dinosaurs.  Cherry-picking is a common fallacy associated with evolutionary 'arguments'.

"In fact, so many life forms survived the K-T event that it would take a textbook to describe them all.  Many of these animals have descendants that live tod­ay."

Evolution is so wonderful that it can accommodate both animals that have gone extinct as well as animals that still exist millions and millions of years after these alleged extinction events.

Evolution can do absolutely everything...  /s

[Dexter]

I love the Creos who have Fred Flintstone riding dinosaurs.

I recently had to explain to somebody I work with that tyrannosaurus rex did not live at the same time humans did.

[Dexter]

Dan, does the Earth orbit the sun or vise versa?

[Relic]

I love the Creos who have Fred Flintstone riding dinosaurs.

Creo? Evo? Ahhh, excellent.


We are learning to hate each other. Who needs Democrats when we have each other?

[Carling]

I love the Creos who have Fred Flintstone riding dinosaurs.

I think the idea of Creationism is absurd.  This is the second time you've brought it up, and you haven't added anything of substance to this thread.

[Dexter]

I think the idea of Creationism is absurd.  This is the second time you've brought it up, and you haven't added anything of substance to this thread.

He's entitled to bringing it up 100 times if he wants to. He didn't direct anything at you specifically.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Obviously there are a few posters on this board who need to read up on the difference between species evolving into new species, and species adapting to their current climate while remaining the same species  I'm a bit embarrassed for Luis Gonzalez, who is so adamant in his belief in this thread, yet is so laughably wrong in his examples.

Species can't adapt to poison.Those members of a species that possess some trait which helps them survive the poison change (evolve) the species.

Adaptation is closer to what Eskimos did in Alaska. They modified their habitat, clothing and even diet to deal with the harsh weather conditions they live in. Evolution in their case would mean that they would eventually be able to run around the tundra in Bermuda shorts and tank tops.

There are several hundred scientific websites that you can use to confirm whether or not my definition of evolution vs. adaptation is correct. Feel free.

There's no need for you to feel any embarrassment for me. I'm quite comfortable with both my opinions and the opinions of others re: my opinions.

I will say this however.

Earlier on the thread you challenged me on "knowing" that evolution was fact. You argued that no one can "know" what is and what isn't truth on this subject.

So then, how do you know that I am wrong to such a degree that you feel embarrassment for me?

P.S. I don't see Dan's posts. This will be the only time that I address his posts indirectly.

[aligncare]

For me, understanding evolution took years of study and I firmly believe that evolution is how mankind got to where he is today.

I also believe God created the universe, and of course, the physical laws that govern how the universe works, including evolution. God created reality and set the pendulum in motion. He also set the stage for the evolution of a being, capable and clever enough to solve the mysteries of the universe.

Finding life on other planets would be just one more step towards solving the ultimate question of life.

[alicewonders]

For me, understanding evolution took years of study and I firmly believe that evolution is how mankind got to where he is today.

I also believe God created the universe, and of course, the physical laws that govern how the universe works, including evolution. God created reality and set the pendulum in motion. He also set the stage for the evolution of a being, capable and clever enough to solve the mysteries of the universe.

Finding life on other planets would be just one more step towards solving the ultimate question of life.

I like the way you explain it ac.  I believe that way too.  God is the Master Scientist!

[Luis Gonzalez]

For me, understanding evolution took years of study and I firmly believe that evolution is how mankind got to where he is today.

I also believe God created the universe, and of course, the physical laws that govern how the universe works, including evolution. God created reality and set the pendulum in motion. He also set the stage for the evolution of a being, capable and clever enough to solve the mysteries of the universe.

Finding life on other planets would be just one more step towards solving the ultimate question of life.

To bring this thread full circle, a candidate's response to the trap question on evolution should always be that what they think is irrelevant. What's important is that we all continue to be free to reach our own conclusion.

[GourmetDan]

Species can't adapt to poison.  Those members of a species that possess some trait which helps them survive the poison change (evolve) the species.

That's what adaptation is.  Those members of a species that survive because of a genetic trait are adapted to that environment.

Adaptation is closer to what Eskimos did in Alaska. They modified their habitat, clothing and even diet to deal with the harsh weather conditions they live in. Evolution in their case would mean that they would eventually be able to run around the tundra in Bermuda shorts and tank tops.

There are several hundred scientific websites that you can use to confirm whether or not my definition of evolution vs. adaptation is correct. Feel free.

I am shocked that 'scientists' would define adaptation in a manner that supports only evolution...   /s

Apparently, whether evolution is true or false turns solely on what the accepted definition of 'adapted' is.  If an 'incorrect' definition is used, evolution evidently fails...

That would be the fallacy of No True Scotsman for appealing to the fact that only 'real' scientists accept an agreed-upom definition which conveniently supports their worldview...

[Lando Lincoln]

To bring this thread full circle, a candidate's response to the trap question on evolution should always be that what they think is irrelevant. What's important is that we all continue to be free to reach our own conclusion.

Thank you Luis.

[Lando Lincoln]

For me, understanding evolution took years of study and I firmly believe that evolution is how mankind got to where he is today.

I also believe God created the universe, and of course, the physical laws that govern how the universe works, including evolution. God created reality and set the pendulum in motion. He also set the stage for the evolution of a being, capable and clever enough to solve the mysteries of the universe.

Finding life on other planets would be just one more step towards solving the ultimate question of life.

Well done.

[Lando Lincoln]

We are learning to hate each other. Who needs Democrats when we have each other?

We are hopeless.

[Carling]

He's entitled to bringing it up 100 times if he wants to. He didn't direct anything at you specifically.

I didn't say he couldn't bring it up.  I said he's offered nothing of substance. 

[Carling]

Species can't adapt to poison.Those members of a species that possess some trait which helps them survive the poison change (evolve) the species.

Adaptation is closer to what Eskimos did in Alaska. They modified their habitat, clothing and even diet to deal with the harsh weather conditions they live in. Evolution in their case would mean that they would eventually be able to run around the tundra in Bermuda shorts and tank tops.

P.S. I don't see Dan's posts. This will be the only time that I address his posts indirectly.

That's probably a good thing for you, because he's ripping you and your incorrect beliefs on adaptation to shreds.  I post this as somehow who has, as far as I can remember, never agreed with GourmetDan on much of anything else.

When a poster is correct, though, and is schooling someone who is making up their own definitions, I'll support the correct poster.

[musiclady]

To bring this thread full circle, a candidate's response to the trap question on evolution should always be that what they think is irrelevant. What's important is that we all continue to be free to reach our own conclusion.

THE END   

[Luis Gonzalez]

That's probably a good thing for you, because he's ripping you and your incorrect beliefs on adaptation to shreds.  I post this as somehow who has, as far as I can remember, never agreed with GourmetDan on much of anything else.

When a poster is correct, though, and is schooling someone who is making up their own definitions, I'll support the correct poster.

I'm really trying to be polite here, but if you insist on being an ass, then we're done.

NO ONE IS RIPPING ANYONE ANYONE APART BECAUSE THERE IS NO ONE HERE WHO WAS AN EYEWITNESS TO CREATION OR EVOLUTION.

We are all simply stating what our beliefs are.

To the best of my understanding there are no evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, biogeographists, ichnologists, morphologists, developmental or evolutionary biologists.

If there are any one of those in the crowd, please stand up and wave then clarify some of this contentious issues for us.

I've come to the conclusions that I've come to on the subject by reading both sides of the issue, and in my mind, the points that I've made are the most logical answers to the quyestions that I asked over the years.

You go on cheerleading Dan.

The pom-poms look adorable.

[olde north church]

I think the idea of Creationism is absurd.  This is the second time you've brought it up, and you haven't added anything of substance to this thread.

Actually, I did.  It had something to do with radial evolution, rather than linear.  You want to believe the earth is 7,000 years old?  Have at it.  All these fairy stories and sky pilots keep us down.
I believe in a Creator.  Whether it was a big Jew in the sky, a alien from another planet, a "being" that is extradimensional.  I'm here now.  What there was before me, I can't prove it happened.  When I'm gone, it's really not going to matter.  You worry about yourself and Hell and guys with horns.  Call me "Jimmy Crack Corn".  I don't care.

[truth_seeker]

Does anybody know how much resource is devoted to proving young earth Biblical creationism, who funds it, which respected institutions administer it, etc? Here is the leading proponent of "creationism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ham

and members of the supporting staff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Broadcasting_Network#Wealth_and_transparency

Down through the ages, those designated to preserve religious mythology have been supported by the community, generally stayed inside, while the commoners labored outdoors in harsh weather to provide food and others things.

Virtually all faith systems have creation myths, and keepers of those myths. Trinity and Ham are the present day keepers of the American literal Biblical creation myth system.

Compare that to the tens of thousands of serious scientists, with real higher degrees, with the foregoing.