Dirty secret of Evolutionary theory?

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: Dirty secret of Evolutionary theory?

Postby Roger Stanyard » Tue Apr 23, 2013 7:33 pm

SkepticalOne wrote:
Also, you mentioned earlier that the Polish tetrapod tracks are not universally regarded as such. Have these doubts been published, or are they more informally expressed objections? If the latter, what sort of objections have you encountered?


See http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/12/08/1118669109
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Dirty secret of Evolutionary theory?

Postby Dr_GS_Hurd » Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:08 pm

I have been on the verge of replying several times, but there have been some well presented comments by others. What I have not seen was "ScepticalOne" acknowledgeing that the "Dirty Secret" is that they were badly ignorant about biology. Without that evidence of an ability to learn, there seems little reason to try and teach.
User avatar
Dr_GS_Hurd
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:45 pm
Location: Dana Point, California

Re: Dirty secret of Evolutionary theory?

Postby Dr_GS_Hurd » Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:27 pm

SkepticalOne wrote:I appreciate the rational and informative nature of your responses, Christine. So Tiktaalik's morphology illuminates the sequence tetrapod evolution took. Knowing this gives paleontologists an idea of what our actual ancestor must have looked like because it would presumably have acquired traits in the same order. Thus Tiktaalik can provisionally be used as a proxy for the direct tetrapod ancestor. Is this accurate?

Also, you mentioned earlier that the Polish tetrapod tracks are not universally regarded as such. Have these doubts been published, or are they more informally expressed objections? If the latter, what sort of objections have you encountered?



My friend Per Erik Ahlberg is one of the coauthors of the "Polish Paper" creationists are so happy to misrepresent. I say, "misrepresent" when I mean "lying." The Tiktaalik fossil was the first discovered example of the expected morphology for a "fish to tetrapod intermediary." It need not be the first to have ever existed. It could just as easily have been the last survivor of its lineage to have ever existed. The fact that it did exist is a strong confirmation of the science that predicted that it should exist.

How about the "Dirty Secret of Creationism?" That is that they are vile liars and frauds.
User avatar
Dr_GS_Hurd
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:45 pm
Location: Dana Point, California

Re: Dirty secret of Evolutionary theory?

Postby Roger Stanyard » Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:58 am

Dr_GS_Hurd wrote:I have been on the verge of replying several times, but there have been some well presented comments by others. What I have not seen was "ScepticalOne" acknowledgeing that the "Dirty Secret" is that they were badly ignorant about biology. Without that evidence of an ability to learn, there seems little reason to try and teach.


There is no reason to teach; the creationists are only here to preach. Strange, isn't it, that they all claim to e debating but when you ask them what their alternative "creation science" explanations are, they ignore you or "don't have the time" to reply.

ScepticalOne's game here is to try and "expose" scientists (and most of the people in this forum) as dishonest - first using Tiktaalik and. once that was dealt with, the Polish stuff. His position on the latter is straight off the CMI website, btw. He's so transparent as to be risible.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Dirty secret of Evolutionary theory?

Postby Peter Henderson » Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:41 pm

ScepticalOne's game here is to try and "expose" scientists (and most of the people in this forum) as dishonest - first using Tiktaalik and. once that was dealt with, the Polish stuff. His position on the latter is straight off the CMI website, btw. He's so transparent as to be risible


http://creation.com/tiktaalik-finished

It’s suddenly been demoted to an evolutionary dead end along with all the other fossils connected with it. In other words, all those neat evolutionary diagrams that vividly displayed the transition from fish to four-footed animal ancestor (such as figure 1) need to be disposed of. The evolutionary house of cards, so proudly paraded before the world, collapses with a breeze of evidence from Poland


This is not some small correction or a minor detail. It has turned the paleontological world upside down. Something of the magnitude of the upset can be gleaned from statements made about the find.

•“They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record.”7
•“[It] will cause a significant reappraisal of our understanding of tetrapod origins.”8
•“[They] could lead to significant shifts in our knowledge of the timing and ecological setting of early tetrapod evolution.”9
•“We thought we’d pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods. We have to rethink the whole thing.”10
•“That’s surprising, but this is what the fossil evidence tells us.”11
•“These results force us to reconsider our whole picture of the transition from fish to land animals.”


Note the terms “radical reassessment”, “reappraisal”, “surprising”, “reconsider … whole picture” and “rethink”. We are given the impression that paleontologists scratch around in the sediments and the evidence for evolution just pops out. Creationists are castigated because they are accused of working by faith and not evidence. Well, this Polish upset demonstrates that evidence does not speak for itself. It takes thought, ingenuity, mental exercise and interpretation to make sense of it. The paleontological world is going to take quite some time to rethink its stories


Remember that all scientists come to the evidence with their own beliefs, biases and … vested interests. Those who have dedicated their lives and careers to the standard fish-to-beast story will not be very enthused by the implications of the latest find. They will be reluctant to change, especially since they have nothing to replace it with.

Curiously, there are a few different ways they could choose to rework the evidence and hold onto Tiktaalik at the same time. If that doesn’t work they may simply ignore it. Time will tell.


Hmmmmm.

That definitely sounds familiar.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Dirty secret of Evolutionary theory?

Postby SkepticalOne » Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:36 pm

We've heard all the same from creationists time and time again. Tiktalik, the Polish tracks or whatever. They are bog standard and tired and tedious creationist boilerplate. We've also heard time and time again creationists claiming that they are only talking about science. In your case I don't believe you. Any fool can find holes in science, which is exactly what you set out to do - "I quote "Dirty secret of Evolutionary theory?"


ScepticalOne's game here is to try and "expose" scientists (and most of the people in this forum) as dishonest - first using Tiktaalik and. once that was dealt with, the Polish stuff. His position on the latter is straight off the CMI website, btw. He's so transparent as to be risible.


What I have not seen was "ScepticalOne" acknowledgeing that the "Dirty Secret" is that they were badly ignorant about biology. Without that evidence of an ability to learn, there seems little reason to try and teach.


This is pitiful. I have been nothing but inquisitive and open to the information presented. I have not presented a metaphysical position nor indeed even claimed to have one. A number of you have decided independently of anything I have actually said that I am a liar here attempting to undermine evolutionary theory. This belief maintained in the face of available data is rank hypocrisy. You fear a trap so much that you see one where none exists. I came to this forum with my question because it seemed to be populated by reasonable, knowledgeable people. I am disappointed to find that in many cases I overestimated the reasonableness of this community. I have displayed neither ignorance of evolutionary biology in general nor stated disbelief in it and yet I stand accused of both. Tiktaalik was merely an example around which to frame the more general question in which I was interested. I await Christine's response as she seems to be the only one willing to respond to what I am actually saying. She has layed out the science without interjecting unfounded accusations of dishonesty. Some of you should take note.I suppose Roger deserves some minor credit for posting that paper in response to something I actually said, but he still displays a great deal of venom and bullheadedly insists that I defend the views that he has ascribed to me. As I said, I understand that many of you are sensitive to attacks on evolutionary theory, but don't be so sensitive that you launch a counter-assault only to find your swords cutting at empty air.
SkepticalOne
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 5:25 am

Re: Dirty secret of Evolutionary theory?

Postby SkepticalOne » Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:44 pm

His position on the latter is straight off the CMI website, btw


What position? Please quote to me the post in which I give my opinion on the Polish tracks and then do your best to show how it is the same as that of the CMI website. Good luck with that. You will of course fail to do so because what you "know" of my position is based entirely on conclusions you've arrived at independent of my words. I just wanted to point out this hypocrisy once more.
SkepticalOne
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 5:25 am

Re: Dirty secret of Evolutionary theory?

Postby Peter Henderson » Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:51 pm

I await Christine's response as she seems to be the only one willing to respond to what I am actually saying.


Is she responding to you or Tas Walker ?
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Dirty secret of Evolutionary theory?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:35 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
Dr_GS_Hurd wrote:I have been on the verge of replying several times, but there have been some well presented comments by others. What I have not seen was "ScepticalOne" acknowledgeing that the "Dirty Secret" is that they were badly ignorant about biology. Without that evidence of an ability to learn, there seems little reason to try and teach.


There is no reason to teach; the creationists are only here to preach. Strange, isn't it, that they all claim to e debating but when you ask them what their alternative "creation science" explanations are, they ignore you or "don't have the time" to reply.

ScepticalOne's game here is to try and "expose" scientists (and most of the people in this forum) as dishonest - first using Tiktaalik and. once that was dealt with, the Polish stuff. His position on the latter is straight off the CMI website, btw. He's so transparent as to be risible.



You MAY be correct, Roger. He has not explicitly denied being a YEC as far as I recall. (And the word 'skeptical' can occur in numerous different contexts.) You obviously have more experience of seeing and responding to such enquiries on this website than I do.

However, in such cases I personally tend to take them at face value and play a straight bat. If there is an answer (one which I did not myself have) it should always be provided, as appears to have been the case here.

Otherwise ammunition is given IF the person DOES happen to be a YEC - "Instead of answering my question they started accusing me of being a closet creationist. This suggests that they have no answer and that their position is religious instead of scientific."

(Or an evolutionist is left a bit confused and unimpressed with the BCSE.)

I'm speaking as someone who is more cynical than ever about how YECs behave (see the Lisle thread).
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dirty secret of Evolutionary theory?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:40 pm

"This is pitiful. I have been nothing but inquisitive and open to the information presented. I have not presented a metaphysical position nor indeed even claimed to have one. A number of you have decided independently of anything I have actually said that I am a liar here attempting to undermine evolutionary theory. This belief maintained in the face of available data is rank hypocrisy. You fear a trap so much that you see one where none exists. I came to this forum with my question because it seemed to be populated by reasonable, knowledgeable people. I am disappointed to find that in many cases I overestimated the reasonableness of this community. I have displayed neither ignorance of evolutionary biology in general nor stated disbelief in it and yet I stand accused of both. Tiktaalik was merely an example around which to frame the more general question in which I was interested. I await Christine's response as she seems to be the only one willing to respond to what I am actually saying. She has layed out the science without interjecting unfounded accusations of dishonesty. Some of you should take note.I suppose Roger deserves some minor credit for posting that paper in response to something I actually said, but he still displays a great deal of venom and bullheadedly insists that I defend the views that he has ascribed to me. As I said, I understand that many of you are sensitive to attacks on evolutionary theory, but don't be so sensitive that you launch a counter-assault only to find your swords cutting at empty air."

Just seen this comment by SkepticalOne.

As I said, if he is not a closet YEC but an open-minded enquirer then his experience leaves him unimpressed with the BCSE (or some members of the forum at any rate).

He does appear largely to have accepted Christine's answer (though there was a follow-up query, not repeated above).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dirty secret of Evolutionary theory?

Postby cathy » Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:42 pm

This is pitiful. I have been nothing but inquisitive and open to the information presented. I have not presented a metaphysical position nor indeed even claimed to have one. A number of you have decided independently of anything I have actually said that I am a liar here attempting to undermine evolutionary theory.

Well I haven't accused you of anything. However I did ask you a question which I think you must have missed.

This belief maintained in the face of available data is rank hypocrisy. You fear a trap so much that you see one where none exists. I came to this forum with my question because it seemed to be populated by reasonable, knowledgeable people. I am disappointed to find that in many cases I overestimated the reasonableness of this community. I have displayed neither ignorance of evolutionary biology in general nor stated disbelief in it and yet I stand accused of both. Tiktaalik was merely an example around which to frame the more general question in which I was interested.

SkepticalOne, I think I'll re-ask my question here, now I've been assured that you are not ignorant of evolutionary biology and that you are not denying the evidence for evolution.

Anyway my question. The biological explanations given to you are what would be predicted by evolution and only by evolution as far as I can see. They fit perfectly and are indeed what evolutionary biologists predicted would be present in any tiktaalik like fossil when it were found, whatever distance from its ancestor (with or without the spurious polish track which if valid only serve to move the timelines to one end of an expected time frame). I cannot imagine any other scenario that tiktaalik would fit into at all, yet am intrigued by your repeated questioning of what has been found and the logical conclusions.

So given the above I wondered if you knew of any other possible full scientific explanations for tiktaalik and indeed his/her fellow apparent transitions? What nice complete scientific explanation can you give for each and every bone in relation to the fish and tetrapods lying either side of it in broad general terms?

As I said, I understand that many of you are sensitive to attacks on evolutionary theory, but don't be so sensitive that you launch a counter-assault only to find your swords cutting at empty air."


I wasn't aware there were any real attacks on evolutionary biology? Not credible scientific ones anyway. Not since Lamarcks challenge eons ago. I don't think any of us are sensitive - I know I'm not, skin of a rhino (metaphorically speaking - like Genesis does).

await Christine's response as she seems to be the only one willing to respond to what I am actually saying. She has layed out the science without interjecting unfounded accusations of dishonesty. Some of you should take note.

Please don't judge too harshly. You have to understand that people will be suspicious of anyone who comes onto the forum giving us a verbatim creationist argument/line of questioning. We used to have a resident creationist till he ran away and he used to repeat the tiktaalik/polish footprints questions again and again with no real argument or reason, almost as you have, so I guess it is hard for us not to think oh no not this old chestnut again. However I believe in coincidences and therefore am not accusing you.

I suppose Roger deserves some minor credit for posting that paper in response to something I actually said, but he still displays a great deal of venom and bullheadedly

A lot of credit actually for fighting creationist nonsense for so long and so successfully. Stick around and hear some of the nonsense and lies they come out with and you'll be a bit unhappy as well. Honestly SkepticalOne you really will not be able to believe just how dishonest they are. With your understanding of evolutionary biology, five minutes on CMIs website and you'll be weeping.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Dirty secret of Evolutionary theory?

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:18 am

SkepticalOne wrote:
His position on the latter is straight off the CMI website, btw


What position? Please quote to me the post in which I give my opinion on the Polish tracks and then do your best to show how it is the same as that of the CMI website. Good luck with that. You will of course fail to do so because what you "know" of my position is based entirely on conclusions you've arrived at independent of my words. I just wanted to point out this hypocrisy once more.


My conclusion is based on your own words - "Dirty secret of Evolutionary theory?"

Plus it's the oldest scam in the creationist world - to feign debate by claiming they are only asking questions. Bait and switch - first Tiktaalik and then the Polish tracks. It took me about 2 minutes to find the paper raising doubts about the initial interpretation of the tracks.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Dirty secret of Evolutionary theory?

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:29 am

SkepticalOne wrote:Calm down, Roger. I gather that many of you have been at this for a number of years and so I understand that some of you are perhaps somewhat overly sensitive to perceived attacks on evolutionary theory. But you have reached a conclusion about me and my motivations based on what you feel to be true rather than any of the data you have gathered from my posts. Is not an a priori conclusion which is maintained despite the available evidence precisely what enrages you about creationism? I have made no metaphysical claims nor even questioned the validity of evolutionary theory. I have merely posed a question regarding some specific details of the theory with which even some regulars of this forum are unfamiliar. And the result has been that I and others here have benefited from Christine's informative and levelheaded response. Contrast this with your responses and you should feel at least a prickle of shame for the bellicosity you're displaying here. I'm ignoring your demands that I provide my creationist (you assume) interpretation because, as I have explicitly stated, this question is not metaphysically-motivated, hence why I originally posted my question on the Science Only board. You should consider responding reasonably like Christine and Haworthroberts to the things I actually say rather than the things you imagine I am secretly saying.



Erudite waffle.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Dirty secret of Evolutionary theory?

Postby SkepticalOne » Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:21 pm

Erudite waffle


Belligerent scone?

My conclusion is based on your own words - "Dirty secret of Evolutionary theory?"


False. If your conclusion were based on my words then you would be aware of my explanation of the post title which was intended to provoke a response rather than state a thesis. In fact that title is exactly the same format as one by a_haworthroberts:

A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

And yet I suspect that you did not decide based on that and despite the actual content of the post that it was a thetical statement and that he was advocating a 6000 year old earth. So how do you justify doing that here? As Cathy has pointed out and as I have acknowledged, many of you have a lot of history on this forum dealing with persistent anti-science so I can understand that you are reacting strongly, but you really need to do your best to save your venom for people actually disputing science rather than simply asking for some specifics. You called my motivation risibly transparent. This amuses me because of how wildly off the mark you are. I asked about the Polish tracks because Christine mentioned that they were not universally accepted and I wanted more information on the matter, information which may or may not have been published and thus may or may not have been available online.

Cathy, while I certainly appreciate your cordiality, you still mistake my intent here. You ask that I provide a replacement scientific theory that explains Tiktaalik and friends in a non-evolutionary light, but nowhere have I espoused this intent. Tiktaalik was merely an example used to ask the question I posed. Again, I can only urge that people here respond to the words I type and not the words they imagine are floating around in my head.

And Christine, if you could confirm that I've correctly summarized your explanation that would be much appreciated.
SkepticalOne
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 5:25 am

Re: Dirty secret of Evolutionary theory?

Postby Peter Henderson » Thu Apr 25, 2013 3:29 pm

A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?


The question is do you accept a 4.55 billion year old Earth and a 14.4 (recently revised upwards) billion year old universe ?

The age of the Earth is as important now as it was in Darwin's day. If it were only 6,000 years old evolution would indeed be impossible. Even Kelvin's calculations of 20-30 million years, based on the decay of the Earth's primordial heat, didn't allow nearly enough time for what Darwin observed and the conclusions he drew from those observations (and Wallace too).

So how old do you think the Earth is ? If you think it's only 6,000 years then when it comes to evolution you might as well forget it. Your questions simply have no meaning.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

PreviousNext

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron