Evolutionist Say the Darndest Things, Part I

_{Cornelius Hunter

March 11, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

It is amazing what evolutionists say when confronted with their own words. Perhaps the most consistent claim of evolutionists is that evolution is a fact. For centuries evolutionary thinkers have been making high truth claims, and the evolution-is-fact claim is now standard in the literature. But when confronted with this claim in light of the facts of biology which contradict their idea, evolutionists retort that you don’t understand the concept of a “fact.” But what is there not to understand? Evolutionists say their idea is a fact as much as is gravity. It is beyond a shadow of a doubt, and it would be perverse to doubt it. Read more

Comments

Living things change over time. That is a fact.
Non-living things don't change over time?
Living things change over time. That is a fact.
I'll admit I've changed over time. If that's evolution, I'm all for it.Mung_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

This fact-theory dichotomy is a key apologetic in evolutionary thought.
It's also basic scientific procedure called trying to make sense of the world. You start with a fact or collection of facts - repeated and repeatable observations - and spin stories to link them together in some kind of explanatory framework. You find various ways to test the stories. If a story passes the tests then you have yourself a theory - until an upgrade comes along. Living things change over time. That is a fact. It has been observed to happen and was known before Darwin. Even Adjunct Professors at Biola University have to admit that. Ask animal breeders. Darwin asked the obvious question: if those changes in animal morphology can be shaped by artificial selection - us - then why not by environmental pressures - not us? Hence the theory of evolution.Seversky_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

This fact-theory dichotomy is a key apologetic in evolutionary thought. Notice that it decouples evolution from the evidence and makes the theory immune to the facts of biology.
Ironic that evolution should require an apologetic isn't it? It's not like Darwin wasn't aware that there were many facts which could be adduced against his theory.Mung_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

I asked you specifically to name this other alleged evidence, in absence of a “complete” fossil record (though it is complete enough to make a solid inference to ID and rule out evo.), seeing as I, nor any other, can seem to find it.
You asked me about an opinion, and I gave it (because I was asked). I don't have the ability to give you all the necessary facts. That's why I don't send an OP to a common evolution blog claiming that even if the fossil record was completely unknown, we should still believe evolution. However, I did have time to examime Hunter's statements. They are not grounded in reality. And nobody is able to support them. Shouldn't that be criticed, since this indeed is an OP at a popular ID blog?hrun0815_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

hrun, I am focused on what you said in 11' "I would say that if we had all other evidence but were completely ignorant of the fossils then evolution would still be true." I asked you specifically to name this other alleged evidence, in absence of a "complete" fossil record (though it is complete enough to make a solid inference to ID and rule out evo.), seeing as I, nor any other, can seem to find it. Or are you going to ignore this request for evidence and prove Dr. Hunter's claim that your religion is driving your science and it matters.bornagain77_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

So, to follow your logic through, now that we know of the evidence that contradicts the theory, ignoring it is unimportant. Nice.
I made a specific charge: Hunter made statements that he (or anyone else) is unable to support. Nothing of what you said supports them.
Instead of taking shots at the low hanging fruit in your imagination, try to apply yourself.
It might be low-hanging fruit to you, that you can have an OP riddled with statements that can't be supported, yet the conclusion is there for anyone to read. I consider those low-hanging fruit important. You don't. Fine. Don't support his statements.hrun0815_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

hrun, So, to follow your logic through, now that we know of the evidence that contradicts the theory, ignoring it is unimportant. Nice. - - - - - - Instead of taking shots at the low hanging fruit in your imagination, try to apply yourself. At least, occasionally.Upright BiPed_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

bornagain77, I went through your whole post, yet, I found not a shred of supporting evidence for any of Hunter's comments. Did I miss something?hrun0815_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

Upright Biped: Exactly. So Hunter's comments are even more baseless that originally thought. And Dawkin's comment is also meaningless in this context.hrun0815_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

hrun0815, Since the fossil evidence certainly provides no compelling proof for evolution, and in fact when looked at nonprejudicially it supports the opposite (quotes and references upon request), to what possible ironclad evidence for neo-Darwinism do you allude? Genetic? Why Darwin was wrong about the (genetic) tree of life: - 21 January 2009 Excerpt: Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another," Syvanen says. ...."We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely," says Syvanen. "What would Darwin have made of that?" http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html I would like to point out that this, "annihilation" of Darwin's genetic tree of life, article came out on the very day that Dr. Hillis, a self-proclaimed "world leading expert" on the genetic tree of life, testified before the Texas State Board Of Education that the genetic tree of life overwhelmingly confirmed gradual Darwinian evolution. One could almost argue it was "Intelligently Designed" for him to exposed as a fraud on that particular day of his testimony instead of just any other day of the year. The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution - Eugene V Koonin - Background: "Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable; http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21 Biological Big Bangs - Origin Of Life and Cambrian - Dr. Fazale Rana - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4284466/the_sudden_origin_of_life_cambrian_explosion_dr_fazale_rana/ 'The theory makes a prediction (for amino acid sequence similarity); we've tested it, and the prediction is falsified precisely.' Dr. Colin Patterson Senior Principal Scientific Officer in the Paleontology Department at the British Museum Congruence Between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies - Colin Patterson Excerpt: "As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology." Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 7 Excerpt: "There is not a trace of evidence on the molecular level for the traditional evolutionary series: simple sea life > fish> amphibians > reptiles> mammals. In general, each of the many categories of organisms appear to be equally isolated." Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005: The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a nucleotide difference of 1-2%. Recently, direct nucleotide sequencing confirmed this estimate. These findings generated the common belief that the human is extremely close to the chimpanzee at the genetic level. However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009 The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity - Richard Sternberg Excerpt: One can seriously call into question the statement that human and chimp genomes are 99% identical. For one thing, it has been noted in the literature that the exact degree of identity between the two genomes is as yet unknown (Cohen, J., 2007. Relative differences: The myth of 1% Science 316: 1836.). ,,, In short, the figure of identity that one wants to use is dependent on various methodological factors. Since it can't be genetics to which a case can be made (save for very selective cherry picking) please do tell to which evidence you have pinned your faith on Hrun0815bornagain77_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

hrun, Unfortunately, we are not ignorant of the fossil record. Nor are we ignorant of the rate of mutation. Nor are we ignorant of semiotic information processing or DNA repair. It all exist.Upright BiPed_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

Re #9: I would say that if we had all other evidence but were completely ignorant of the fossils then evolution would still be true. That is exactly what Dawkins claims. But it is completely different from what Hunter claims in his post.hrun0815_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

Well, if fossil evidence doesn’t matter, (which it apparently doesn’t) then that would certainly include the very first and second items on your list.
Aeehhh, no!. Hunter claimed that "evolutionists just explained that biological facts don’t matter" and that "the facts of biology can’t hurt evolution". Your post supports neither of those statements.
I suppose you could argue that fossil evidence isn’t biological evidence (good luck with that), and if the fossil evidence doesn’t matter, then the fact that the fossil evidence is not explained by known evolutionary mechanisms will have no bearing on the theory
I would not claim that fossil evidence is not biological. Hunter claimed that 'biological facts' IN GENREAL (i.e. all of it) does not matter to evolution and he claimed that 'facts of evolution' IN GENERAL (i.e. all of them) can't hurt evolution. You simply cite a single instance (which I might add might require slightly more context as well), but you (and anybody else) is unable to show that the general (which Hunter is claiming) is true.hrun0815_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

Let me ask hrun, Dawkins apparently thinks that the fossil evidence is unimportant to the credibility of the theory of evolution, do you?Upright BiPed_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

May one ask the same question of Intelligent Design?
You may ask, and formally speaking it is possible intelligent design wasn't the case. It doesn't let evolutionary theory off the hook for shoddy science built on speculation, equivocation, non-sequiturs and story telling. Evolutionist are free to speculate, but just don't call it science, call it what it is, story telling. Even if ID is not formally proven, and even if for the sake of argument one decides it is not within the realm of empirical science, the infrence is hard to run from once evolutionary theories are discovered to be faulty and wrong.scordova_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

You asked for support of some of Dr Hunter's comments, and listed them out. Well, if fossil evidence doesn't matter, (which it apparently doesn't) then that would certainly include the very first and second items on your list.
But wait, evolutionists just explained that biological facts don’t matter[...] But if the facts of biology can’t hurt evolution[...]
I suppose you could argue that fossil evidence isn't biological evidence (good luck with that), and if the fossil evidence doesn't matter, then the fact that the fossil evidence is not explained by known evolutionary mechanisms will have no bearing on the theory.Upright BiPed_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

Re #5: So what? Which of the statements does the quote by Dawkins support?hrun0815_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

hrun #3 "We don’t need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. We, I mean, it would be an obviously true fact even if not a single fossil had ever been formed. " -Richard DawkinsUpright BiPed_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

"But if we don’t know how it occurred, how is it that we know that it did occur?" This is a nonsensical question no matter who is asking it.tgpeeler_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

But wait, evolutionists just explained that biological facts don't matter[...]

But if the facts of biology can't hurt evolution[...]

But evolution is not an empirical fact.[...]

The facts of biology are also quite clear, and so there is a contradiction.

[...]there is also plenty of contradictory evidence.
Says who? Do you have support for any or those statements or are you simply making them up?hrun0815_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

But if we don't know how it occurred, how is it that we know that it did occur? May one ask the same question of Intelligent Design?Mark Frank_{March 11, 2010
March
03
Mar
11
11
2010
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT}

It's a "fact" because outside of divine intervention -- there is no other theory. Unless you subscribe to alien intervention, as some do. But still, if the alien is biological then again you only have God or evolution as it's origin.mentok_{March 11, 2010
March
03
Mar
11
11
2010
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply