Support NeoGAF

[threenote]

How do creationists explain atavisms?
Why do we sometimes find leg bones in whales and dolphins but never in fish?
Why do chickens have genes for making teeth?
Why do mammals not have genes for making feathers?
Why are humans sometimes born with tails and why do some people have more than 2 nipples on their body that follow the milk line?

Don't be facetious; that is all part of God's plan.

 

[Dead Man]

How do creationists explain atavisms?
Why do we sometimes find leg bones in whales and dolphins but never in fish?
Why do chickens have genes for making teeth?
Why do mammals not have genes for making feathers?
Why are humans sometimes born with tails and why do some people have more than 2 nipples on their body that follow the milk line?

Satan.

On a less facetious note, I found this interview with Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve interesting. It's short, so go to the link, but I found this bit an interesting view of things:

You think that natural selection has worked against us. How?

Because it has no foresight. Natural selection has resulted in traits such as group selfishness being coded in our genes. These were useful to our ancestors under the conditions in which they lived, but have become noxious to us today. What would help us preserve our natural resources are genetic traits that let us sacrifice the present for the sake of the future. You need wisdom to sacrifice something that is immediately useful or advantageous for the sake of something that will be important in the future. Natural selection doesn't do that; it looks only at what is happening today. It doesn't care about your grandchildren or grandchildren's grandchildren.

You call this short-sightedness "original sin". Why did you pick this terminology?

I believe that the writers of Genesis had detected the inherent selfishness in human nature that I propose is in our genes, and invented the myth of original sin to account for it. It's an image. I am not acting as an exegete - I don't interpret scripture.

 

[jaxword]

Agreed, for the most part at least. But sickle cell anemia can't be used as a prototype for Evolution. It is a defect! No biologist would argue against that.

That is not what the word evolution means. Evolution does not mean "better" or "no defect".

If you are using it with those terms, you are defining the word incorrectly. Willfully using a word incorrectly is not a valid argument.

 

[iapetus]

That is not what the word evolution means. Evolution does not mean "better" or "no defect".

If you are using it with those terms, you are defining the word incorrectly. Willfully using a word incorrectly is not a valid argument.

Natural selection is generally seen as the selection of beneficial traits, of course.

 

[Dead Man]

Natural selection is generally seen as the selection of beneficial traits, of course.

That is true, but in this instance the short term selection was for better traits: Malaria resistance

Edit: Evolution and natural selection are also not synonyms of course.

 

[danwarb]

The sickle cell mutation is beneficial in the environment where it became prevalent. Areas hard-hit by malaria.

It might not be beneficial in other environments, but natural selection is oblivious to that.

 

[AdventureRacing]

I'm not even going to attempt to respond to all that. You just go missing for days and than just copy paste as much info as you can to try and deter anyone from responding.

However this one particular comment really annoyed me.

Even a cursory glance at it screams "design." But according to evolutionists with their "just so" or "could have" stories without any hard scientific basis say... evolution did it!

So you insult the scientists who support evolution for having no hard evidence and then throw out an argument which consists of 'well it looks like it was designed by something intelligent'.

To even try and say that there is no hard scientific basis for evolution and then turn around and act like there is for intelligent design is laughable.

My biggest issue on this whole debate is that intelligent design isn't a theory at all. Its just an attempt to paint holes in the theory of evolution (which it hasn't managed to do yet). Then when its supporters think they find a hole in the theory they use god to fill the gap, even though there is no evidence of it.

I feel really sorry for you if these are the conclusions you have reached after 10 years of studying the subject. You have clearly only looked at one side whilst completly ignoring the other. This is a trait that is common amongst supporters of ID and its why most of them have no credibility amongst the scientific community.

 

[Zaphod]

Creationists love the whole missing link argument. Each time a new transitional creature is discovered two new missing links are created.

 

[Kinitari]

I wonder why he got banned this time... sigh.

Regardless, that was freaking exhausting. One point I want to bring up, which is very important - I think - is the idea that the theory of evolution can explain everything out there.

It can't.

Not because it is inaccurate, but because there is -so- much out there to explain - and we are still learning more and more about our past. We might never be able to 100% verify exactly how the flagellum came to be, or whatever, so all we can do is give our absolute best guess.

You know what is not our absolutely best guess? ID or Creationism. Those are lazy guesses, guesses where we have an answer in mind, and we try to jam it into the holes where Evolution hasn't clearly and simply explained a process or our past.

I sincerely have no problem if you want to debate Evolution, if you want to argue that ID -is- legitimate science, that Creation is legitimate science. Just when you do, bring some actual arguments, don't do hit and runs, don't post walls and walls of text that no one is ever going to actually answer, and for the love of god, explain exactly what you mean if you decide to throw around any sound-bites. What is new information to you, what would have to happen? What is speciation to you? What would have to happen? What do you mean micro/macro evolution? Irreducible complexity? If you use these fancy words, you need to explain what these fancy words mean.

 

[Nocebo]

Wow, putting parts of Vizion28's posts (which are not marked as quotes and don't have a source) into google is fun. Creationist websites are weird. It feels like stepping into a world where everything is completely reversed. Also they're very fond of straw men.

I find it ironic that they want to paint Evolution as a religion to somehow weaken the position. I mean wut?

 

[iapetus]

I find it ironic that they want to paint Evolution as a religion to somehow weaken the position. I mean wut?

They want to put evolution and ID on an equal footing.

Some people do take an almost religious approach to science. That doesn't invalidate the fact that it is science, that its conclusions are reached and tested scientifically, and that ID doesn't come close to matching that.

 

[Bit-Bit]

They want to put evolution and ID on an equal footing.

Some people do take an almost religious approach to science. That doesn't invalidate the fact that it is science, that its conclusions are reached and tested scientifically, and that ID doesn't come close to matching that.

I wouldn't say religious. It doesn't have any rituals or holy texts that cannot be challenged.

More like fan boys.

 

[iapetus]

I wouldn't say religious. It doesn't have any rituals or holy texts that cannot be challenged.

More like fan boys.

Probably agree with you on rituals, but not on holy texts.

 

[CountScary]

They want to put evolution and ID on an equal footing.

Some people do take an almost religious approach to science. That doesn't invalidate the fact that it is science, that its conclusions are reached and tested scientifically, and that ID doesn't come close to matching that.

Up until the point that we know something existed, ID and evolution are on equal footing - after that point in time, to deny evolution exists is just lunacy.

 

[Kinitari]

Up until the point that we know something existed, ID and evolution are on equal footing - after that point in time, to deny evolution exists is just lunacy.

Sorry, what? When are Evolution and ID ever on equal footing? Can you give me an example where Evolution attempts to explain something, and then ID has an equally strong explanation?

 

[iapetus]

Up until the point that we know something existed, ID and evolution are on equal footing - after that point in time, to deny evolution exists is just lunacy.

Wrong and incoherent.

 

[mclaren777]

The reviewer's opinion on the subject should not affect it's publication as long as it's a good experiment.

I never suggested that they did. I was merely debunking Raist's assertion that Dr. Ewert "has no idea of what he's talking about".

 

[speculawyer]

Adaptation.

Adaptation is the term for evolution for people who are unable to comprehend long periods of time due to their human brains that are only familiar with human time scales.

 

[Boozeroony]

Adaptation is the term for evolution for people who are unable to comprehend long periods of time due to their human brains that are only familiar with human time scales.

Do you comprehend?

 

[Stinkles]

I never suggested that they did. I was merely debunking Raist's assertion that Dr. Ewert "has no idea of what he's talking about".

Ewert's peers and colleagues think he's wrong. Almost all of them. The vast teeming mass of them. And all the evidence they understand and support (better than you or I do, naturally) and yet you're picking this dissenter and asking us to take him seriously.

The scientific community thinks he's a joke, but you, a layman, take his opinions about science seriously. Why? Because he thinks the same way you do. That is to say, erroneously. He's wrong.

It's like finding a black guy at a Tea Party rally and saying, "This is a typical Tea Partier."

Your "scientist" which is in quotes since he himself is ignoring science and the scientific method, is the exception that proves the rule.

There is no debate. You're tilting at windmills.

 

[Raist]

I never suggested that they did. I was merely debunking Raist's assertion that Dr. Ewert "has no idea of what he's talking about".

And you completely ignored my reply. If you want to argue about publishing process and journal impact factor rankings, we can go for it. I deal with it regularly.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Why is evolution something you have to "believe" in?

That's as retarded as saying:

Do you believe in gravity?
Do you believe in the cell?
Do you believe in Photosynthesis?

UGH. Fuck. Why does science attract so many morons, when it's supposed to do the exact opposite.

 

[Raist]

Why is evolution something you have to "believe" in?

That's as retarded as saying:

Do you believe in gravity?
Do you believe in the cell?
Do you believe in Photosynthesis?

UGH. Fuck. Why does science attract so many morons, when it's supposed to do the exact opposite.

Well it basically goes against their beliefs. Although I'm not sure physicists get so much crap for the big band theory.

Ewert's peers and colleagues think he's wrong. Almost all of them. The vast teeming mass of them. And all the evidence they understand and support (better than you or I do, naturally) and yet you're picking this dissenter and asking us to take him seriously.

The scientific community thinks he's a joke, but you, a layman, take his opinions about science seriously. Why? Because he thinks the same way you do. That is to say, erroneously. He's wrong.

It's like finding a black guy at a Tea Party rally and saying, "This is a typical Tea Partier."

Your "scientist" which is in quotes since he himself is ignoring science and the scientific method, is the exception that proves the rule.

There is no debate. You're tilting at windmills.

It's probably a conspiracy.

 

[Raist]

DP >.>

 

[BronzeWolf]

They want to put evolution and ID on an equal footing.

Some people do take an almost religious approach to science. That doesn't invalidate the fact that it is science, that its conclusions are reached and tested scientifically, and that ID doesn't come close to matching that.

Layman people might approach science as a religion. Scientists don't approach science, scientists MAKE science.

And no book in science is holy. That's why you've got new editions every 5 years of any one book about any scientific topic. New shit gets discovered, altered and rewritten all the time.

How many times since their inception have holy books been re-edited to accommodate new discoveries?

Comparing holy texts to scientific literature is a false fallacy

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Why is evolution something you have to "believe" in?

That's as retarded as saying:

Do you believe in gravity?
Do you believe in the cell?
Do you believe in Photosynthesis?

UGH. Fuck. Why does science attract so many morons, when it's supposed to do the exact opposite.

Yes, I believe in Gravity, Cell theory and Photosynthesis.

A belief is a statement that one would agree with the truthfulness of. All statements that you agree with are your "Beliefs". Being a belief has no bearing on whether or not it is likely, proven etc.

 

[jaxword]

Natural selection is generally seen as the selection of beneficial traits, of course.

Seeing that people seem to be denying Natural Selection even occurs, it's probably best to make sure all terms are nailed down with definitions. Denying evolution means denying things change.

 

[Raist]

Natural selection is generally seen as the selection of beneficial traits, of course.

But that's for a particular organism in a particular context. Plus usually, these things come at a cost.

 

[iapetus]

Layman people might approach science as a religion. Scientists don't approach science, scientists MAKE science.

Well, yes. Mostly people who take a quasi-religious view of science are laymen. Hence my comments about how this doesn't change the way that science is done and doesn't impact on its value.

And no book in science is holy. That's why you've got new editions every 5 years of any one book about any scientific topic. New shit gets discovered, altered and rewritten all the time.

There are plenty of scientific texts that don't get rewritten and that people (who don't know better) hold as gospel truth.

How many times since their inception have holy books been re-edited to accommodate new discoveries?

More often than you think, apparently.

Comparing holy texts to scientific literature is a false fallacy

It's a good job I didn't do that, then. I'm talking about the attitude of people to the books, not the content. Unlike some people (on both sides of the debate) I understand what science is, why it works, why you can't put ID and the theory of evolution on an equal footing, and why 'just a theory' isn't an insult.

 

[iapetus]

Seeing that people seem to be denying Natural Selection even occurs, it's probably best to make sure all terms are nailed down with definitions. Denying evolution means denying things change.

You've got to be careful with your terminology in cases like this. If you want to talk about the fact that things change over time, 'evolution' is a bad word to use for it, because it carries so much baggage. From a randomly selected online dictionary:

ev·o·lu·tion
[ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-] Show IPA
–noun
[...]
3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

Wikipedia's entry on evolution begins:

Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in inter-breeding populations of organisms. Inherited traits are particular distinguishing characteristics, including anatomical, biochemical or behavioural characteristics, that result from gene–environment interactions. Evolution may occur when there is variation of inherited traits within a population. The major sources of such variation are mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow. This process has produced all the diversity of living organisms. Charles Darwin characterized the result as endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful.

Two processes are generally distinguished as common causes of evolution. One is natural selection, a process in which there is differential survival and/or reproduction of organisms that differ in one or more inherited traits. Another cause is genetic drift, a process in which there are random changes to the proportions of two or more inherited traits within a population.

When we're talking about evolution in a biological context, there's a lot of baggage that comes along with it. I'm sure there are evolution deniers out there who would accept change over time, but deny the mechanisms that the theory of evolution posits for its cause.

 

[wolfmat]

More often than you think, apparently.

This is a very important realization, also.

For instance, good ol' Satan was a pretty cool dude at first. Simply a servant of God whose job description could be boiled down to his title at the time — the accuser. The downfall was added then, eventually, so he was re-invented for political reasons; along came the witchhunts and shit — and so forth, you know what happened.
Nowadays, the unspeakable evil (and good, for that matter) as it is naively understood by the Hollywood-infected masses trotting out of a re-run of The Exorcist doesn't actually exist as a concept anymore (except for making politics as a US president post 9/11, I suppose), but it was very real as a world-mirroring concept once, was created for very well-thought-out purposes at some point, didn't exist before that.

Science has similar stories. Pretty much every field has similar stories, really.

 

[jaxword]

You've got to be careful with your terminology in cases like this. If you want to talk about the fact that things change over time, 'evolution' is a bad word to use for it, because it carries so much baggage.

If we start to think of it as a "bad word" then the debate is already hemorrhaging and won't go anywhere. I know what you mean, though.

Not that it really matters, but was it this thread that got Vizion banned?

 

[Raist]

More often than you think, apparently.

They've been edited a lot in their respective religions' infancy, but haven't changed a bit in hundreds of years. Unless I missed something.

 

[wolfmat]

They've been edited a lot in their respective religions' infancy, but haven't changed a bit in hundreds of years. Unless I missed something.

Incorrect; for instance, the Pearl of Great Price's reference edition is from 1979, as far as I'm aware. That would be the English version.
Bibles have been rewritten over and over again for adjustments concerning outdated language; this gradually introduces different meanings. Not sure about the current status there.
According to Wikipedia, at this point in time, there are 1,600 languages the Bible is being translated into, which introduces further meaning from the interaction between language and culture in each individual language's social context.

All this stuff is in constant flux!

Edit: I didn't even mention the passive change of meaning, which is the different view on things as humans evolve socially, and the ramifications in terms of language and validity (or at least interpretation) of Bible passages.

 

[Raist]

Incorrect; for instance, the Pearl of Great Price's reference edition is from 1979, as far as I'm aware. That would be the English version.
Bibles have been rewritten over and over again for adjustments concerning outdated language; this gradually introduces different meanings. Not sure about the current status there.
According to Wikipedia, at this point in time, there are 1,600 languages the Bible is being translated into, which introduces further meaning from the interaction between language and culture in each individual language's social context.

All this stuff is in constant flux!

It's just semantics or grammar at best. Has any of the factual fallacies been corrected? I don't think so.

edit: I think we're slowly going waaaaay OT though.

 

[wolfmat]

It's just semantics or grammar at best. Has any of the factual fallacies been corrected? I don't think so.

In a clinical setting, this holds true. Religious texts get their meaning outside of matters of semantics or grammar though; that shit evolves even without text changes.

edit: I think we're slowly going waaaaay OT though.

Well, yes, but then again,

 

[iapetus]

If we start to think of it as a "bad word" then the debate is already hemorrhaging and won't go anywhere. I know what you mean, though.

It's not that it's a bad word per se. Just that when you use 'evolution' in this context, then it's reasonable to take it as including the widely accepted mechanisms of biological evolution. If you're just talking about change over time, then you need to specify that.

 

[jaxword]

It's not that it's a bad word per se. Just that when you use 'evolution' in this context, then it's reasonable to take it as including the widely accepted mechanisms of biological evolution. If you're just talking about change over time, then you need to specify that.

I prefer to approach problems (and arguments) step by step. In the case of evolution, you start with the idea of something changing over time. If people DON'T accept that, they're not accepting reality and any discussion is pointless. If they DO, then already the discussion is moving forward.

 

[Raist]

I prefer to approach problems (and arguments) step by step. In the case of evolution, you start with the idea of something changing over time. If people DON'T accept that, they're not accepting reality and any discussion is pointless. If they DO, then already the discussion is moving forward.

Well I think even the most hardcore creationists will agree that life does evolve, the problem is that they put some arbitrary boundaries which don't really make any sense.

Well, yes, but then again,

 

[iapetus]

I prefer to approach problems (and arguments) step by step. In the case of evolution, you start with the idea of something changing over time. If people DON'T accept that, they're not accepting reality and any discussion is pointless. If they DO, then already the discussion is moving forward.

Which is why 'evolution' is a bad word to use for that single step, because it contains all the rest of the steps in its meaning.

 

[Chaplain]

Streaming right now on Netflix:

Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution: Vol. 1
2000NR 46 minutes

This documentary explores evidence claiming to prove that certain animals could only have come from a divine creator, and not evolution. Challenge your thought processes and beliefs as intricate designs throughout the animal kingdom are dissected, conjuring up many questions about the true origins of several creatures. Dr. Jobe Martin lets viewers in on startling data that surprised even him at first.

Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution: Vol. 2
2000NR 45 minutes

This intriguing documentary conjures up many questions about the true origins of several creatures as it explores evidence claiming to prove that certain animals could only have come from a divine creator, and not evolution. Challenge your own thought processes and beliefs as complicated and intricate designs throughout the animal kingdom are dissected. Dr. Jobe Martin lets viewers in on startling data that surprised even him at first.

Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution: Vol. 3
2000NR 78 minutes

This documentary explores evidence claiming to prove that certain animals could only have come from a divine creator, and not evolution. Dr. Jobe Martin lets viewers in on startling data that surprised even him at first. Challenge your own thought processes and beliefs as complicated and intricate designs throughout the animal kingdom are dissected, conjuring up many questions about the true origins of several creatures.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
2008PG 97 minutes

Hosted by Ben Stein, this controversial documentary examines how pro-intelligent design scholars and scientists are often chastised, fired or denied tenured positions by those who believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. Nathan Frankowski's film explores how scientists who believe in God are oppressed and how the acceptance of Darwinism might have played a role in the formation of the Nazi regime.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Can we have a meta-discussion here? Who does Game Analyst think he's trying to convince by posting creationist videos without any context or argument? He must know that making such a post in a thread of people who largely think creationism is discredited is an antagonistic act. There is also an implicit condescension there in posting something, seen as discredited, like it is convincing and others have no answer to it. For example, the hubris of Vizion asking me if I ever thought about "his" argument, when I had read the paper and he hadn't, is astounding.

Between Vizion's massive quote fest, mclaren777's podcasts, and Game Analyst's Netflix videos, there is no real effort put into any of these posts. It can take hours to go through the information, do some research, and compose an answer. People don't have that time. If you're a creationist or IDer in an evolution thread, then your first principle should be presentation. You should try to make a concise, powerful argument, perhaps using quotes but letting others know that you understand the concepts presented. And for the love of god post as if you have an awareness of the situation. It should not be this difficult.

 

[Raist]

Streaming right now on Netflix:

Thanks for that. Can't wait to get schooled on evolution by a dentist with a masters in theology.

 

[Chaplain]

Can we have a meta-discussion here? Who does Game Analyst think he's trying to convince by posting creationist videos without any context or argument? He must know that making such a post in a thread of people who largely think creationism is discredited is an antagonistic act. There is also an implicit condescension there in posting something, seen as discredited, like it is convincing and others have no answer to it. For example, the hubris of Vizion asking me if I ever thought about "his" argument, when I had read the paper and he hadn't, is astounding.

I am presenting another point of view through people that are more familiar with the subject of creationism and evolution than I am. I am never going to convince anyone of what to believe. All I can do is present information for people to look over and let them critically analyze what is being said.

 

[Raist]

I am presenting another point of view through people that are more familiar with the subject of creationism and evolution than I am. I am never going to convince anyone of what to believe. All I can do is present information for people to look over and let them critically analyze what is being said.

It's not information. It's misleading propaganda.

By the way, darwinism was never one of the fundations of the Nazi regime. Hitler was a roman catholic.

 

[Chaplain]

Thanks for that. Can't wait to get schooled on evolution by a dentist with a masters in theology.

I think the same thing can be said for the countless of posters on Neogaf who debate on evolution when they are not experts in evolution. If your point of view was accurate, then hardly anyone in this thread should even speak. Right?

 

[Zaptruder]

Can we have a meta-discussion here? Who does Game Analyst think he's trying to convince by posting creationist videos without any context or argument? He must know that making such a post in a thread of people who largely think creationism is discredited is an antagonistic act. There is also an implicit condescension there in posting something, seen as discredited, like it is convincing and others have no answer to it. For example, the hubris of Vizion asking me if I ever thought about "his" argument, when I had read the paper and he hadn't, is astounding.

Between Vizion's massive quote fest, mclaren777's podcasts, and Game Analyst's Netflix videos, there is no real effort put into any of these posts. It can take hours to go through the information, do some research, and compose an answer. People don't have that time. If you're a creationist or IDer in an evolution thread, then your first principle should be presentation. You should try to make a concise, powerful argument, perhaps using quotes but letting others know that you understand the concepts presented. And for the love of god post as if you have an awareness of the situation. It should not be this difficult.

what are you kidding me? These are all very high level concepts. If they could grasp them, you think they'd be ID'ers in the first place?

 

[Chaplain]

It's not information. It's misleading propaganda.

By the way, darwinism was never one of the fundations of the Nazi regime. Hitler was a roman catholic.

Countless facts contradict this.

Hitler being a catholic does not mean anything. Jesus said by a persons works would people know if we are his disciples. Jesus said that there are countless people who claim to know God but are really Satan's children disguised in sheep's clothing.

 

[danwarb]

It's amazing that people put so much effort into denying the obvious, spending millions. The reality isn't really that bad is it?


It makes sense that it happens though if, through the evolution of the human brain, we're predisposed to creationist thinking when pondering origins. Innate teleological reasoning, theory of mind and whatnot.

 

[DarthWoo]

Hmm...a series of Christian-oriented documentaries produced by a person with no background in science and pretty much only in Christian films, and a nearly Breitbartian-style documentary (though perhaps Breitbart got his editing style from Stein). How convincing.