- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A Scientific dissent from Darwin
Posted on 2/11/19 at 1:33 pm to Lg
Posted on 2/11/19 at 1:33 pm to Lg
quote:
And yet we act unequivocally like we know exactly how things have transpired over thousands or billions of years. Like arguing with a global warming proponent that can't tell you what the optimal temperature of the earth should be but will yell in your face that we need to stop it from warming.
Think about this for a second and ask yourself whether this is more applicable to creationist/IDers or people who believe in evolution through natural selection
2
Posted on 2/11/19 at 1:42 pm to CivilTiger83
quote:
Do the resident atheists realize that in the past couple of years the British Royal Society, an esteemed group of scientists that are in the purely naturalistic camp came together to discuss the need for a new theory of evolution because the current one has serious issues?
Well. You do realize that they weren't debating whether Evolution occurred. They merely assert that there are mechanisms beyond pure natural selection driving it.
This goes actually to the primary point. Just like Einstein overturned the view of gravity being a force of some sort that reached out and grabbed objects............but he did NOT overturn friggin gravity.......the folks at the Royal Society are arguing over the HOW of Evolution.........now the existence of it.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 1:53 pm to OMLandshark
quote:ok
No, it's me saying wait and see while you are just talking out of your arse.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 1:54 pm to bmy
quote:
Think about this for a second and ask yourself whether this is more applicable to creationist/IDers or people who believe in evolution through natural selection
I would say for one worldview you do at least have a starting point? Genesis 1:20-24 And God said, Let the waters bring forth and the earth bring forth. And in no way would that put any restrictions on how things evolved from there.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 1:54 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Well. You do realize that they weren't debating whether Evolution occurred. They merely assert that there are mechanisms beyond pure natural selection driving it.
This goes actually to the primary point. Just like Einstein overturned the view of gravity being a force of some sort that reached out and grabbed objects............but he did NOT overturn friggin gravity.......the folks at the Royal Society are arguing over the HOW of Evolution.........now the existence of it.
The point is that evolutionists steeped in the science and studying it from different directions particularly from the biology angle are saying that there are serious problems with current evolutionary theory when it is applied to what we have observed and have no real solution to the problems with the theory.
Of course they won't jump to the macro evolution is wrong crowd... that would be career suicide.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 1:57 pm to CivilTiger83
quote:
The point is that evolutionists steeped in the science and studying it from different directions particularly from the biology angle are saying that there are serious problems with current evolutionary theory when it is applied to what we have observed and have no real solution to the problems with the theory.
This describes tons of science.
When people are debating how a thing occurs, that doesn't mean they are looking to abandon that it does.
quote:No. They won't jump to that because they aren't retarded.
Of course they won't jump to the macro evolution is wrong crowd... that would be career suicide.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 1:58 pm to CivilTiger83
quote:
Of course they won't jump to the macro evolution is wrong crowd... that would be career suicide.
Because it is stupid. It's like saying you can walk down the street but not from New York to LA. The only major difference is time. The fact that there is a "micro" proves there is a "macro" simply due to understanding English.
This post was edited on 2/11/19 at 2:00 pm
Posted on 2/11/19 at 2:03 pm to CivilTiger83
quote:
The point is that evolutionists steeped in the science and studying it from different directions particularly from the biology angle are saying that there are serious problems with current evolutionary theory when it is applied to what we have observed and have no real solution to the problems with the theory.
Of course they won't jump to the macro evolution is wrong crowd... that would be career suicide.
Very very very few are saying this, and the ones that are are making a point about it you don't understand.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 2:05 pm to narddogg81
quote:In terms of gradual evolutionary speciation?
gonna see if you can figure out the issue with this
I think I just may have it "figured out". Just maybe.
Did the post confuse you?
Posted on 2/11/19 at 2:06 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Very very very few are saying this, and the ones that are are making a point about it you don't understand.
I don't think any scientist is using a macro vs microevolution argument. It's just brainwashed idiots who listen to their barely literate Southern Baptist preacher. It's like an economist saying "Well obviously microeconomics exist, but macroeconomics, don't buy it."
Posted on 2/11/19 at 2:08 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Fun Bunch
quote:
you don't understand.
Oh look, Ignatius J. Reilly is back
Posted on 2/11/19 at 2:09 pm to CivilTiger83
quote:Negative.
there are serious problems with current evolutionary theory
Not as a general precept.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 2:10 pm to OMLandshark
quote:The second I see these words used, I know I'm dealing with someone who isn't even familiar with the material, much less prepared to debate it
I don't think any scientist is using a macro vs microevolution argument.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 2:18 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
It's just brainwashed idiots who listen to their barely literate Southern Baptist preacher.
Do you think you get bonus points every time you say this? I'm sure there are plenty of people out there, even in the scientific community, that worship God in the same sanctuary as the Southern Baptist preacher that are infinitely more intelligent than you. And to that point, I'm pretty sure there are a few Southern Baptist preachers that could take you to task with their intelligence as well.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 2:24 pm to Lg
quote:
Do you think you get bonus points every time you say this? I'm sure there are plenty of people out there, even in the scientific community, that worship God in the same sanctuary as the Southern Baptist preacher that are infinitely more intelligent than you. And to that point, I'm pretty sure there are a few Southern Baptist preachers that could take you to task with their intelligence as well.
If they can't fathom the concept of micro and macro, then yeah it's a safe assumption I'm smarter than them. It is something someone with an IQ in the mid-80s should be able to comprehend.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 2:35 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
The fact that there is a "micro" proves there is a "macro" simply due to understanding English.
Does showing how a finch has small variations in color or beak size to fit their environment prove the evolutionary mechanism by which an animal goes from no eyes to having fully formed eyes?
An esteemed Austrian evolutionary biologist much more intelligent than I am pointed this out...
quote:
As can be noted from the listed principles, current evolutionary theory is predominantly oriented towards a genetic explanation of variation, and, except for some minor semantic modifications, this has not changed over the past seven or eight decades. Whatever lip service is paid to taking into account other factors than those traditionally accepted, we find that the theory, as presented in extant writings, concentrates on a limited set of evolutionary explananda, excluding the majority of those mentioned among the explanatory goals above. The theory performs well with regard to the issues it concentrates on, providing testable and abundantly confirmed predictions on the dynamics of genetic variation in evolving populations, on the gradual variation and adaptation of phenotypic traits, and on certain genetic features of speciation. If the explanation would stop here, no controversy would exist. But it has become habitual in evolutionary biology to take population genetics as the privileged type of explanation of all evolutionary phenomena, thereby negating the fact that, on the one hand, not all of its predictions can be confirmed under all circumstances, and, on the other hand, a wealth of evolutionary phenomena remains excluded. For instance, the theory largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behavior — whose variation it describes — actually arise in evolution, and it also provides no adequate means for including factors that are not part of the population genetic framework, such as developmental, systems theoretical, ecological or cultural influences.
This is someone much more steeped on evolutionary biology than I am who is pointing out in essence there is a fundamental difference between micro and macro evolutionary theory.
Edit - The Austrian evolutionary biologist is Dr. Gerd B Muller. This quote was from the meeting of the British Royal Society discussing evolution.
This post was edited on 2/11/19 at 2:36 pm
Posted on 2/11/19 at 2:41 pm to CivilTiger83
quote:
An esteemed Austrian evolutionary biologist
Sure when you don't even put a name down. And esteemed by who?
quote:
This is someone much more steeped on evolutionary biology than I am who is pointing out in essence there is a fundamental difference between micro and macro evolutionary theory.
No there isn't. The scale is the only fundamental difference. Mutations have to happen millions of times to get a result where a creature is fundamentally unrecognizable from its ancestors.
EDIT: Saw that you added the name, and after a brief go through on this guy, I think it's pretty clear you're taking it out of context. This is just some shite that the ministers are trying to spin into their own bullshite. Heard plenty of these sermons over the years of taking like 2 or 3 things a famous scientist has said, and then disregarding 99% of everything else they said. More intellectual dishonesty from anti-evolutionists.
This post was edited on 2/11/19 at 2:47 pm
Posted on 2/11/19 at 2:44 pm to CivilTiger83
Ah I love when you loons pick out of context quotes from respected biologists to try and say "GOTCHA". It really is quite amusing.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 2:47 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Mutations have to happen millions of times to get a result where a creature is fundamentally unrecognizable from its ancestors.
Wouldn't seem like there is enough time frame for this to happen with just the human species.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 2:47 pm to CivilTiger83
quote:doesn't disagree that the eye arose from evolution. He disagrees on the exact mechanism.
Dr. Gerd B Muller
But you wouldn't know that because I just googled that whole paragraph and it ain't no stunner as to why you didn't link it.
Page 13 of 29
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News