Are Evolutionists Delusional (or just in denial)?

_{Cornelius Hunter

July 27, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

My friend Paul Nelson has the patience of Job. He writes that evolutionists, such as PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne, “need to think about [their theological arguments] more deeply.” In one moment evolutionists make religious arguments and in the next they claim their theory is “just science.” Their religious arguments, they explain, really aren’t religious arguments after all. Gee, that was easy. In light of such absurdity, I don’t have much confidence that evolutionists are going to think more deeply about this. But it would be nice if they would stop misrepresenting science. And it would be nice if they would stop using their credentials to mislead the public. In short, it would be nice if they would stop lying.

Continue reading here.

Comments

khan, I said it would take a fair amount of time but it does not require examining every possible difference or every possible mutation when one is looking for major changes and within a family, I would also suspect most of the genome is very similar within a family. If they are not, then why are they within the same family. The difference might be relatively small and if one species has a unique characteristic not present in another part of the taxonomy then it may not be hard to isolate that element or set of elements. Your characterization is absurd so I do not know what you expect to get from such an approach. I think I will refuse to answer any question you have in the future. It is tiresome dealing with you. You don't want a conversation but a series of steps to show how to show someone is wrong. Say what you want. I gave you an approach to finding major differences within taxonomic groups. Like it or ignore it. It seems to be what many people are doing in evolutionary biology and what a biologist suggested to me several months ago. It made sense then, it makes sense now.jerry_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

And BTW how often do African tribes interbreed with Inuits? IOW is that is a criteria it applies to humans as well.Joseph_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

Khan, How often they interbreed is irrelevant. And what do you care about data? Your position doesn't have any. And if you dispute "race" then take it up with the FBI who use it as one of their categories.Joseph_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

Joseph,
Interbreeding is possible amongst the finches.
yes, bu they do it rarely. where are your data on how frequently races, in a situation similar to the Galapagos, "interbreed"? we need those to see if they are comparable.
As for the differences between the races- you are kidding, right? If there wasn’t any differences there wouldn’t be different races.
I'm just asking for some specific data, Joseph. please show me where I can find clear data that show that variation within races is lower than that between races.Khan_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

Khan, Thank you for proving thta you can't follow along. Interbreeding is possible amongst the finches. That is why I said what I did. As for the differences between the races- you are kidding, right? If there wasn't any differences there wouldn't be different races. I take it that it hurts that you can't substantiate your claims so you have to stick your nose where it doesn't belong and make more unsubstantiated claims.Joseph_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

ps Joseph, the Grants have spent 30 years making careful measurements and observations on Darwin's finches. You have spent 5 seconds making unsupported statements on human races. why should we "apply the criteria evenly?"Khan_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

Joseph,
Fertility has nothing to do with it.
the ability to produce viable offspring is one of the fundamental characteristics of a species. so fertility in that sense is critical, although maybe that wasn't the clearest choice of words.
And the morphological traits between races is well documented.
really, where?Khan_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

Khan, Thanks for proving you are not following along. Fertility has nothing to do with it. And the morphological traits between races is well documented. My point is if one is going to call the different variations of finch "different species" then the same criteria applied evenly would mean the human races are also "different species". Not applying the criteria evenly is a sign of prejudice. IOW Khan you stuck your nose where it didn't belong.Joseph_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

Joseph, thanks for answering my question. you have no idea about whether variance in morphological traits or fertility in human races is sufficient to differentiate them as separate species. so why were you so insistent it was true? some people might call that attitude racist.Khan_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

Khan, What do you have? That is besides the refusal to accept the design inference.Joseph_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

Nakashima:
OK, what do the other 5% say to you?
That they exist.
I get the idea you don’t buy UCD, but what do you buy?
What can be demonstrated?: 1- Life begets life 2- Humans beget humans 3- fish beget fish 4- single-celled organisms beget single-celled organisms What do you have? As I said I bet I can take all the "evidence" for UCD and use it for universal common design.Joseph_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

jerry, when you write this:
It would be in the genomes of a family or even higher up the taxonomic tree. All the changes between genera and species and variants would be there and all the paths that the changes could have taken would theoretically be there too
this is how i interpret it:
so you want a mutation-by-mutation analysis of the evolution of higher phylogenetic groups, with the function of each gene identified, the fitness changes of each mutation calculated in every generation (including all the epistatic and epigenetic effects), for multiple individuals of each sex of every species, including the 99% that went extinct along the way?
please explain why I am wrong.Khan_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

Khan, I leave the "making stuff up" to people like you. It is obvious your position boils down to nothing but the refusal to accept the design inference.Joseph_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

khan, If you want to distort what I said, go ahead. What I proposed was reasonable research carried out over time. Such research is typical in the evolutionary biology field. You asked a question, I politely answered it and said that I already had answered it more than once.jerry_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

David Wisker, I suggest you ask the Grants about species evolution in birds.jerry_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, The vast majority of the fossil record (>95%) is of marine invertebrates- which is to be expected given what we know of the fossilization process. In that vast majority tghere isn’t any evidence for universal common descent. OK, what do the other 5% say to you? I get the idea you don't buy UCD, but what do you buy?Nakashima_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

Cornelius, While I also belive that the evidence does not support evolution. I am a bit confused. To me it seems that Coyne is practicing ID and calling the designer God. Is he not doing a crude probablistic analysis and ruling out design. He is ironically supporing ID method. Also, I prefer to call them blind. The are obviously not stupid. They believe what they say so they are not liars. No amount of light will make them see.Peter_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

Joseph,
The finch dilineation is the same as human race dilineation.
really? have you made the proper morphological measurements, looked at rates of "crossing", viability of offspring, done the proper statistics? or are you just making stuff up again?Khan_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

Dave, The finch dilineation is the same as human race dilineation.Joseph_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

jospeh, The finch dilineation is unnecessary and non-illuminating. To you. .Dave Wisker_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

Dave Wisker, The finch dilineation is unnecessary and non-illuminating. At least as unnecessary and non-illuminating as separating the human races. IOW why is it OK that the Grants apply a strict and arbitrary dilineation of species?Joseph_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

Not my words, but a comment
They must be getting desperate. Trying to label atheist and evolution as religions while they try to steal the label of secular. They must realise that the word religion is becoming a dirty one.
, found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxw3wkOuCysCabal_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

joseph, If you wish to apply a strict and arbitrary delineation of species to human populations so that Africans and Irish can be considered separate species, feel free to do so. I, on the other hand, prefer to recognize such an arbitrary delineation for what it is: unnecessary and non-illuminating.Dave Wisker_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

Dave, As I said by that "logic" the human races are separate species. Heck praticality and convenience and all...Joseph_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

No joseph, not out of prejudice but out of practicality and convebneience. Only someone blinkered by what Ernst Mayr called typological thinking would do it out of prejudice.Dave Wisker_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Nakashima, What Dave is saying is that the separate species label (pertaining to the finch) is ambiguous and most likely made out of prejudice.Joseph_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

Nakashima:
The Africans and Irish do not remain isolated when put on the same island.
They could, very easily.Joseph_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

Mr Nakashima, The finches remain isolated even on the same island. The Africans and Irish do not remain isolated when put on the same island. That's not quite true. In the case I quoted above, the three species of birds do hybridize (albeit rarely) when they come into contact, though probably less often than Africans and Irish do when they come into contact. This is to be expected when closely related populations begin to diverge: somebody living in New England and travelling to Africa would have no problem producing fertile offspring with Africans. However, should that same person attempt to produce fertile offspring with artichokes or sheep anywhere, the results would be as expected considering the time since the divergence of those lineages. So, getting all hot and bothered about species and varieties in early stages of divergence is a waste of time and a diversion from the issues being discussed.Dave Wisker_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

Nakashima:
OK, how do yo think about fossils?
The vast majority of the fossil record (>95%) is of marine invertebrates- which is to be expected given what we know of the fossilization process. In that vast majority tghere isn't any evidence for universal common descent. Why is that? And why isn't that evidence against the premise?Joseph_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Dave Wisker:
Since even Darwin recognized that the line between variations and species is very fuzzy and often arbitrary, so what?
It matters to the point jerry was making.Joseph_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply