|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Oct 21, 2019 4:20:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Oct 21, 2019 10:06:57 GMT -5
I look at it this way. When I die, I will either know the truth... or not. :-D
I cease to worry about it.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Oct 21, 2019 11:04:05 GMT -5
I look at it this way. When I die, I will either know the truth... or not. :-D I cease to worry about it. ** In Luke 16 Jesus/God talked about the rich man and Lazarus found out the truth after their death where they spend for eternity. The rich man wish he could come back to life and warned his family and others about this horrible place in Hades where unbelievers souls must stay temporary until the judgment day. I wish people would take Jesus warning seriously because once a person finds out the truth after death then it will be too late to change our eternal destiny.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2019 11:25:56 GMT -5
Evolution News & Science Today So, Who Is Doing “Pseudoscience”? Granville Sewell August 23, 2018 evolutionnews.org/2018/08/who-is-doing-pseudoscience/Excerpt Please do read this page (it is not hard to read, but here is an even simpler analysis of the compensation argument), and you will be astonished by how corrupt science can become when reviewers are “very, very vigilant” to protect consensus science from any opposing views. And you can decide for yourself who is promoting pseudoscience. “consensus science” evolutionnews.org/tag/consensus-science/Conservapedia Consensus science www.conservapedia.com/Consensus_scienceExcerpt Science writer Michael Crichton said: "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Why consensus science is anti-scienceby Jerry Bergman creation.com/why-consensus-science-is-anti-scienceExcerpt One of the major methods employed to oppose critics of Darwinian theory is the consensus science argument. Consensus science is the claim that evolution is true because it is agreed by the proper authorities, meaning that most all scientists accept evolution; and, therefore, opposition to Darwinism is ‘obviously’ as foolish as claiming that the earth is flat.1 A typical example of the consensus claim is a statement by the National Academy of Science that “The scientific consensus around [Darwinian] evolution is overwhelming”, and, therefore, ideas that oppose it are properly censored.2 References 1 Ravitch, F., Marketing Intelligent Design; Law and the Creationists Agenda, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2011. 2 Anonymous, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, 2nd edn, p. 28, 1999. (understandably "anonymous")
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 21, 2019 12:36:23 GMT -5
BTW don't forget to go get your flu shot. Thanks to evolution understanding!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2019 12:37:42 GMT -5
Evolution News & Science Today So, Who Is Doing “Pseudoscience”? Granville Sewell August 23, 2018 evolutionnews.org/2018/08/who-is-doing-pseudoscience/Excerpt Please do read this page (it is not hard to read, but here is an even simpler analysis of the compensation argument), and you will be astonished by how corrupt science can become when reviewers are “very, very vigilant” to protect consensus science from any opposing views. And you can decide for yourself who is promoting pseudoscience. “consensus science” evolutionnews.org/tag/consensus-science/Conservapedia Consensus science www.conservapedia.com/Consensus_scienceExcerpt Science writer Michael Crichton said: "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Why consensus science is anti-scienceby Jerry Bergman creation.com/why-consensus-science-is-anti-scienceExcerpt One of the major methods employed to oppose critics of Darwinian theory is the consensus science argument. Consensus science is the claim that evolution is true because it is agreed by the proper authorities, meaning that most all scientists accept evolution; and, therefore, opposition to Darwinism is ‘obviously’ as foolish as claiming that the earth is flat.1 A typical example of the consensus claim is a statement by the National Academy of Science that “The scientific consensus around [Darwinian] evolution is overwhelming”, and, therefore, ideas that oppose it are properly censored.2 References 1 Ravitch, F., Marketing Intelligent Design; Law and the Creationists Agenda, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2011. 2 Anonymous, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, 2nd edn, p. 28, 1999. (understandably "anonymous") Germ Theory is overwhelming scientific consensus, but there still people (including people with scientific and medical degrees) who will claim that germs do not cause disease, and the idea is a lie perpetuated by big pharma. Ought we to take them seriously as well? They have loads and loads of 'evidence'.
Likewise, the Round Earth Theory is overwhelming scientific consensus, but that doesn't stop the formation of the flat-earth society.
A scientific 'consensus' doesn't mean that something is complete and settled, but it does mean that the majority of experts who have studied in the field agree on it. And usually, it is best to operate under the impression that the consensus is the best version of reality, unless you have compelling evidence that this is not so. When stacked against the evidence for evolution by natural selection, the evidence for intelligent design quickly breaks down.
From my personal perspective, I could see design insomuch as the fundamental laws that govern matter and energy seem to be mathematically predictable, and just as a Rube Goldberg machine can cause the drop of a ball to produce fresh buttered toast, a singularity could, governed by the intelligent rules of physics and math (essentially existence vs. non), "predictably" produce all that we see here. The order of intelligence that would be required to achieve a predictable result from that sort of Rube Goldberg machine is unfathomable, and insert faith, and humble awe at the unknown and vastness of reality. For our intents and purposes though (limited by our own pathetic intelligence and capabilities), evolution by natural selection seems to most accurately explain things from the macro to the micro.
Seeing as nearly every scientist in Darwin's day was a Christian, I imagine that they would've loved nothing more than for Darwin to be wrong. Indeed, Darwin became a timid hypochondriac prior to publication, and letters from his wife suggest she would be very disappointed in his "anti-God" ideas. If he wasn't sent an identical summary of the same theory of evolution by natural selection by a colleague Wallace (who arrived independently at the identical conclusion of Darwin), he may have never been pressured to present his theory. So, if it's so obvious that intelligent design is the proper and scientific interpretation of events, and it is simultaneously a conclusion which would've caused overwhelming acceptance of Darwin and other scientists, and would've confirmed the literal biblical events they had been taught since children, you either have to believe that it is the world's biggest fraud, perpetrated in bad faith against the church by the same scientific process which gave us Germ Theory and the round earth, or you have to believe that the most educated and experienced individuals in the field of biology are also the dumbest people on the planet.
As to the 'nipples on man' (and the host of other oddities of the intelligent designer), an intelligent design would be to leave them off. I'm not inclined to believe the thought that it would look funny. And no matter the genetic determinant, the issue of them being useless from a "design" perspective is inescapable.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Oct 21, 2019 14:02:29 GMT -5
BTW don't forget to go get your flu shot. Thanks to evolution understanding! Why bother when you trust in god. She will take care of you.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Oct 21, 2019 14:35:52 GMT -5
Of course, this is micro-evolution and is not disputed. The dispute among philosophers and scientists is macro-evolution. Disingenuous to not differentiate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2019 14:56:50 GMT -5
www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/This poll is now 10 years old - if anyone has more recent data, I'd like to know (for my own curiosity). 97% of American scientists say humans evolved over time. It's one of the least debated principles in the sciences. To contrast, human-caused climate change (the overall consensus) has less scientific support (84%), even when you consider that believing the evidence for climate change doesn't mean a trip to hell in the minds of some religious folks (as is the case with evolution).
Also, while some scientists distinguish between macro and micro evolution, most scientists don't consider them as separate except in terms of time and amplified changes. It would be akin to claiming that you have common grandparents with your cousin (micro) vs common Saxon ancestors with your neighbor (micro/macro). Or a common distant ancestor with a chimpanzee (macro). There's not a clear cut off point when talking about historical members of ancestry where you're talking about distinct species from today - it's a non-sequitur since time separates - even though we treat 'extinct' ancestral species as different species. These are just terms which we use to classify organisms anyway. That gets a little more philosophical about how you view living things and classify them, something which is continually ongoing (though our current system of hierarchy has it's usefulness).
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Oct 21, 2019 15:03:47 GMT -5
I have tried to somewhat keep up with this thread but it hurts my head. Is it possible the main argument is really all about semantics? Could they just agree that their God used evolution as one of the tools in his toolbox and we just agree creation and evolution are just two sides of the same thing? I'm all for compromising and getting along when possible, but the case for molecules-to-man is just so weak - it's actually laughable. Listen to the YouTube of David Berlinski at the Socrates in the City event (I posted a link somewhere). He had the whole audience laughing at the idea. God does use micro-evolution *but* this is possible due to information (DNA coding) and restraints already defined within the organism. Macro-evolution requires new information. Mutation doesn't work. Sorry. Look it up and try to find a mutation that was stable and beneficial. Regardless, it doesn't even matter. "It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations." -Niles Eldredge, PhD Paleontologist
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Oct 21, 2019 15:10:52 GMT -5
I look at it this way. When I die, I will either know the truth... or not. :-D I cease to worry about it. ** In Luke 16 Jesus/God talked about the rich man and Lazarus found out the truth after their death where they spend for eternity. The rich man wish he could come back to life and warned his family and others about this horrible place in Hades where unbelievers souls must stay temporary until the judgment day. I wish people would take Jesus warning seriously because once a person finds out the truth after death then it will be too late to change our eternal destiny. Nathan, I can't make myself believe. My dad says he believes "just in case". Huh? Believing "just in case" is simply going through the motions.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Oct 21, 2019 15:12:54 GMT -5
www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/This poll is now 10 years old - if anyone has more recent data, I'd like to know (for my own curiosity). 97% of American scientists say humans evolved over time. It's one of the least debated principles in the sciences. To contrast, human-caused climate change (the overall consensus) has less scientific support (84%), even when you consider that believing the evidence for climate change doesn't mean a trip to hell in the minds of some religious folks (as is the case with evolution). Also, while some scientists distinguish between macro and micro evolution, most scientists don't consider them as separate except in terms of time and amplified changes. It would be akin to claiming that you have common grandparents with your cousin (micro) vs common Saxon ancestors with your neighbor (micro/macro). Or a common distant ancestor with a chimpanzee (macro). There's not a clear cut off point when talking about historical members of ancestry where you're talking about distinct species from today - it's a non-sequitur since time separates - even though we treat 'extinct' ancestral species as different species. These are just terms which we use to classify organisms anyway. That gets a little more philosophical about how you view living things and classify them, something which is continually ongoing (though our current system of hierarchy has it's usefulness).
"Climate change" is undeniable. In 1936, it was 113° F in Ohio and hasn't reached that level again, not even close. The climate has changed. The real question is, are humans and our activity effecting the change? In other words, is climate change anthropogenic? I highly doubt the polling question was carefully worded and explained. Anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. Real Climate Science
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2019 15:14:32 GMT -5
I have tried to somewhat keep up with this thread but it hurts my head. Is it possible the main argument is really all about semantics? Could they just agree that their God used evolution as one of the tools in his toolbox and we just agree creation and evolution are just two sides of the same thing? I'm all for compromising and getting along when possible, but the case for molecules-to-man is just so weak - it's actually laughable. Listen to the YouTube of David Berlinski at the Socrates in the City event (I posted a link somewhere). He had the whole audience laughing at the idea. God does use micro-evolution *but* this is possible due to information (DNA coding) and restraints already defined within the organism. Macro-evolution requires new information. Mutation doesn't work. Sorry. Look it up and try to find a mutation that was stable and beneficial. Regardless, it doesn't even matter. "It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations." -Niles Eldredge, PhD Paleontologist I had never heard that evolution requires "new information" until I heard from creationists. In scientific circles, it would be more accurate to say that evolution works on pre-existing traits, which are subject to change and rearrange over time. We now know that gene duplication and divergence is a powerful method for generating raw sequences (as evidenced by the multiple duplicates and pseudo-genes of the hemoglobin gene). I've talked to the president of a biotechnology company in California whose company grows yeast in the presence of mutagens, in order to expedite the process of creating novel DNA sequences which are variants of original genes.
The concept of duplication and divergence is extremely sound science - The majority of our DNA is comprised of long duplicated regions which do not code for traits (are not genes) at all. Less than 2% of our DNA actually is the genetic code for building proteins ("us"). When DNA copies (reproduction), the enzymes are prone to make mistakes and even duplicate their work. DNA is also prone to jump from various chromosomes to others during the process, and in come cases, whole arms of chromosomes containing lots of code can translocate. In short - sloppy rearrangement is the norm in biology. And since organisms over-reproduce offspring, the environment can select for the winners and losers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2019 15:33:07 GMT -5
www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/This poll is now 10 years old - if anyone has more recent data, I'd like to know (for my own curiosity). 97% of American scientists say humans evolved over time. It's one of the least debated principles in the sciences. To contrast, human-caused climate change (the overall consensus) has less scientific support (84%), even when you consider that believing the evidence for climate change doesn't mean a trip to hell in the minds of some religious folks (as is the case with evolution). Also, while some scientists distinguish between macro and micro evolution, most scientists don't consider them as separate except in terms of time and amplified changes. It would be akin to claiming that you have common grandparents with your cousin (micro) vs common Saxon ancestors with your neighbor (micro/macro). Or a common distant ancestor with a chimpanzee (macro). There's not a clear cut off point when talking about historical members of ancestry where you're talking about distinct species from today - it's a non-sequitur since time separates - even though we treat 'extinct' ancestral species as different species. These are just terms which we use to classify organisms anyway. That gets a little more philosophical about how you view living things and classify them, something which is continually ongoing (though our current system of hierarchy has it's usefulness).
"Climate change" is undeniable. In 1936, it was 113° F in Ohio and hasn't reached that level again, not even close. The climate has changed. The real question is, are humans and our activity effecting the change? In other words, is climate change anthropogenic? I highly doubt the polling question was carefully worded and explained. Anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. I see it a little differently - I don't maintain that human activities and release of carbon stored in fossil fuels has no effect - I just believe that making predictions about whether it's going to heat, cool, or do this and/or that is way too difficult with such a complex system. I wish we could've stuck with "pollution" - a simple term that even I can understand that resonates on a local basis.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Oct 21, 2019 15:33:29 GMT -5
** In Luke 16 Jesus/God talked about the rich man and Lazarus found out the truth after their death where they spend for eternity. The rich man wish he could come back to life and warned his family and others about this horrible place in Hades where unbelievers souls must stay temporary until the judgment day. I wish people would take Jesus warning seriously because once a person finds out the truth after death then it will be too late to change our eternal destiny. Nathan, I can't make myself believe. My dad says he believes "just in case". Huh? Believing "just in case" is simply going through the motions. *** This is not just in case situation but fact of life! Jesus is the Emmanuel= God is with us. God/Jesus doesn't lie or tell us something isn't TRUE. Jesus was revealing to the humans, where ours souls depart after death. The unbelievers souls go to Hades/inner earth. The believers souls go to be with Christ in heaven.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 21, 2019 15:34:44 GMT -5
I have tried to somewhat keep up with this thread but it hurts my head. Is it possible the main argument is really all about semantics? Could they just agree that their God used evolution as one of the tools in his toolbox and we just agree creation and evolution are just two sides of the same thing? I'm all for compromising and getting along when possible, but the case for molecules-to-man is just so weak - it's actually laughable. Listen to the YouTube of David Berlinski at the Socrates in the City event (I posted a link somewhere). He had the whole audience laughing at the idea. God does use micro-evolution *but* this is possible due to information (DNA coding) and restraints already defined within the organism. Macro-evolution requires new information. Mutation doesn't work. Sorry. Look it up and try to find a mutation that was stable and beneficial. Regardless, it doesn't even matter. "It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations." -Niles C Paleontologist So, once again Mr. Ballard, -you take ONE quote out of context from a Creationist site but you don't know (and probably don't want to know) anything about Niles Eldredge actually said.
Niles Eldredge (/ˈɛldrɛdʒ/; born August 25, 1943) is a U.S. biologist and paleontologist, who, along with Stephen Jay Gould, proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972
Eldredge began his undergraduate studies in Latin at Columbia University. Before completing his degree he switched to the study of geology under Norman D. Newell. It was at this time that his work at the American Museum of Natural History began, under the combined Columbia University-American Museum graduate studies program.
Eldredge graduated summa cum laude from Columbia College of Columbia University in 1965, and enrolled in the university's doctoral program while continuing his research at the museum. He completed his PhD in 1969.
Career and research Paleontology
In 1969, Eldredge became a curator in the Department of Invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History, and subsequently a curator in the Invertebrate Paleontology section, a position from which he recently retired.
He was also an Adjunct Professor at the City University of New York. His specialty was the evolution of mid-Paleozoic Phacopida trilobites, a group of extinct arthropods that lived between 543 and 245 million years ago.
Evolutionary theory Further information: Punctuated equilibria
Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed punctuated equilibria in 1972 . Punctuated equilibrium is a refinement to evolutionary theory. It describes patterns of descent taking place in "fits and starts" separated by long periods of stability.
Eldredge went on to develop a hierarchical vision of evolutionary and ecological systems. Around this time, he became focused on the rapid destruction of many of the world's habitats and species. In his book Unfinished Synthesis (1985), he proposed an extended evolutionary synthesis.[7]
Throughout his career, he has used repeated patterns in the history of life to refine ideas on how the evolutionary process actually works. Eldredge is proponent of the importance of environment in explaining the patterns in evolution.
Eldredge is a critic of the gene-centered view of evolution. His most recent venture is the development of an alternative account to the gene-based notions of evolutionary psychology to explain human behavior.
He has published more than 160 scientific articles, books, and reviews, including Reinventing Darwin, an examination of current controversies in evolutionary biology, and Dominion, a consideration of the ecological and evolutionary past, present, and future of Homo sapiens.
Since 2013, Eldredge has been listed on the Advisory Council of the National Center for Science Education.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niles_Eldredge
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Oct 21, 2019 15:55:09 GMT -5
I'm all for compromising and getting along when possible, but the case for molecules-to-man is just so weak - it's actually laughable. Listen to the YouTube of David Berlinski at the Socrates in the City event (I posted a link somewhere). He had the whole audience laughing at the idea. God does use micro-evolution *but* this is possible due to information (DNA coding) and restraints already defined within the organism. Macro-evolution requires new information. Mutation doesn't work. Sorry. Look it up and try to find a mutation that was stable and beneficial. Regardless, it doesn't even matter. "It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations." -Niles C Paleontologist So, once again Mr. Ballard, -you take ONE quote out of context from a Creationist site but you don't know (and probably don't want to know) anything about Niles Eldredge actually said.
Niles Eldredge (/ˈɛldrɛdʒ/; born August 25, 1943) is a U.S. biologist and paleontologist, who, along with Stephen Jay Gould, proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972
Eldredge began his undergraduate studies in Latin at Columbia University. Before completing his degree he switched to the study of geology under Norman D. Newell. It was at this time that his work at the American Museum of Natural History began, under the combined Columbia University-American Museum graduate studies program.
Eldredge graduated summa cum laude from Columbia College of Columbia University in 1965, and enrolled in the university's doctoral program while continuing his research at the museum. He completed his PhD in 1969.
Career and research Paleontology
In 1969, Eldredge became a curator in the Department of Invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History, and subsequently a curator in the Invertebrate Paleontology section, a position from which he recently retired.
He was also an Adjunct Professor at the City University of New York. His specialty was the evolution of mid-Paleozoic Phacopida trilobites, a group of extinct arthropods that lived between 543 and 245 million years ago.
Evolutionary theory Further information: Punctuated equilibria
Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed punctuated equilibria in 1972 . Punctuated equilibrium is a refinement to evolutionary theory. It describes patterns of descent taking place in "fits and starts" separated by long periods of stability.
Eldredge went on to develop a hierarchical vision of evolutionary and ecological systems. Around this time, he became focused on the rapid destruction of many of the world's habitats and species. In his book Unfinished Synthesis (1985), he proposed an extended evolutionary synthesis.[7]
Throughout his career, he has used repeated patterns in the history of life to refine ideas on how the evolutionary process actually works. Eldredge is proponent of the importance of environment in explaining the patterns in evolution.
Eldredge is a critic of the gene-centered view of evolution. His most recent venture is the development of an alternative account to the gene-based notions of evolutionary psychology to explain human behavior.
He has published more than 160 scientific articles, books, and reviews, including Reinventing Darwin, an examination of current controversies in evolutionary biology, and Dominion, a consideration of the ecological and evolutionary past, present, and future of Homo sapiens.
Since 2013, Eldredge has been listed on the Advisory Council of the National Center for Science Education.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niles_Eldredge
Marie, are you suggesting he never said such a thing? If so, you are incorrect. If you were to read up on Punctuated Equilibria, you would realize this is an important quote with direct ties to the theory itself. His quote might make more sense to you once you do that. And you won't have to keep making assumptions that I am unaware of his career details.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Oct 21, 2019 16:23:09 GMT -5
I have tried to somewhat keep up with this thread but it hurts my head. Is it possible the main argument is really all about semantics? Could they just agree that their God used evolution as one of the tools in his toolbox and we just agree creation and evolution are just two sides of the same thing? I'm all for compromising and getting along when possible, but the case for molecules-to-man is just so weak - it's actually laughable. Listen to the YouTube of David Berlinski at the Socrates in the City event (I posted a link somewhere). He had the whole audience laughing at the idea. God does use micro-evolution *but* this is possible due to information (DNA coding) and restraints already defined within the organism. Macro-evolution requires new information. Mutation doesn't work. Sorry. Look it up and try to find a mutation that was stable and beneficial. Regardless, it doesn't even matter. "It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations." -Niles Eldredge, PhD Paleontologist There is no such thing as (DNA coding) such a 1's and 0's there is only shapes which I don't think counts as code
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 21, 2019 16:48:58 GMT -5
So, once again Mr. Ballard, -you take ONE quote out of context from a Creationist site but you don't know (and probably don't want to know) anything about Niles Eldredge actually said.
Niles Eldredge (/ˈɛldrɛdʒ/; born August 25, 1943) is a U.S. biologist and paleontologist, who, along with Stephen Jay Gould, proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972
Eldredge began his undergraduate studies in Latin at Columbia University. Before completing his degree he switched to the study of geology under Norman D. Newell. It was at this time that his work at the American Museum of Natural History began, under the combined Columbia University-American Museum graduate studies program.
Eldredge graduated summa cum laude from Columbia College of Columbia University in 1965, and enrolled in the university's doctoral program while continuing his research at the museum. He completed his PhD in 1969.
Career and research Paleontology
In 1969, Eldredge became a curator in the Department of Invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History, and subsequently a curator in the Invertebrate Paleontology section, a position from which he recently retired.
He was also an Adjunct Professor at the City University of New York. His specialty was the evolution of mid-Paleozoic Phacopida trilobites, a group of extinct arthropods that lived between 543 and 245 million years ago.
Evolutionary theory Further information: Punctuated equilibria
Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed punctuated equilibria in 1972 . Punctuated equilibrium is a refinement to evolutionary theory. It describes patterns of descent taking place in "fits and starts" separated by long periods of stability.
Eldredge went on to develop a hierarchical vision of evolutionary and ecological systems. Around this time, he became focused on the rapid destruction of many of the world's habitats and species. In his book Unfinished Synthesis (1985), he proposed an extended evolutionary synthesis.[7]
Throughout his career, he has used repeated patterns in the history of life to refine ideas on how the evolutionary process actually works. Eldredge is proponent of the importance of environment in explaining the patterns in evolution.
Eldredge is a critic of the gene-centered view of evolution. His most recent venture is the development of an alternative account to the gene-based notions of evolutionary psychology to explain human behavior.
He has published more than 160 scientific articles, books, and reviews, including Reinventing Darwin, an examination of current controversies in evolutionary biology, and Dominion, a consideration of the ecological and evolutionary past, present, and future of Homo sapiens.
Since 2013, Eldredge has been listed on the Advisory Council of the National Center for Science Education.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niles_C
Marie, are you suggesting he never said such a thing? If so, you are incorrect. If you were to read up on Punctuated Equilibria, you would realize this is an important quote with direct ties to the theory itself. His quote might make more sense to you once you do that. No doubt he made such a statement; -but you and the other creationists take it out of context and attempt to use it to prove that Eldredge and others do not believe evolution was the way that life developed!
Creationists use that dishonest tactic all the time! I have observed their manipulations for many years & I see it time & time again!
It is dishonest, deceptive & one of the very reasons that they are not reliable and can't be trusted!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 21, 2019 21:59:01 GMT -5
So, once again Mr. Ballard, -you take ONE quote out of context from a Creationist site but you don't know (and probably don't want to know) anything about Niles Eldredge actually said.
Niles Eldredge (/ˈɛldrɛdʒ/; born August 25, 1943) is a U.S. biologist and paleontologist, who, along with Stephen Jay Gould, proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972
Eldredge began his undergraduate studies in Latin at Columbia University. Before completing his degree he switched to the study of geology under Norman D. Newell. It was at this time that his work at the American Museum of Natural History began, under the combined Columbia University-American Museum graduate studies program.
Eldredge graduated summa cum laude from Columbia College of Columbia University in 1965, and enrolled in the university's doctoral program while continuing his research at the museum. He completed his PhD in 1969.
Career and research Paleontology
In 1969, Eldredge became a curator in the Department of Invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History, and subsequently a curator in the Invertebrate Paleontology section, a position from which he recently retired.
He was also an Adjunct Professor at the City University of New York. His specialty was the evolution of mid-Paleozoic Phacopida trilobites, a group of extinct arthropods that lived between 543 and 245 million years ago.
Evolutionary theory Further information: Punctuated equilibria
Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed punctuated equilibria in 1972 . Punctuated equilibrium is a refinement to evolutionary theory. It describes patterns of descent taking place in "fits and starts" separated by long periods of stability.
Eldredge went on to develop a hierarchical vision of evolutionary and ecological systems. Around this time, he became focused on the rapid destruction of many of the world's habitats and species. In his book Unfinished Synthesis (1985), he proposed an extended evolutionary synthesis.[7]
Throughout his career, he has used repeated patterns in the history of life to refine ideas on how the evolutionary process actually works. Eldredge is proponent of the importance of environment in explaining the patterns in evolution.
Eldredge is a critic of the gene-centered view of evolution. His most recent venture is the development of an alternative account to the gene-based notions of evolutionary psychology to explain human behavior.
He has published more than 160 scientific articles, books, and reviews, including Reinventing Darwin, an examination of current controversies in evolutionary biology, and Dominion, a consideration of the ecological and evolutionary past, present, and future of Homo sapiens.
Since 2013, Eldredge has been listed on the Advisory Council of the National Center for Science Education.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niles_Eldredge
Marie, are you suggesting he never said such a thing? If so, you are incorrect. If you were to read up on Punctuated Equilibria, you would realize this is an important quote with direct ties to the theory itself. His quote might make more sense to you once you do that. And you won't have to keep making assumptions that I am unaware of his career details. Mr, Ballard, -please do not demean my intelligence by telling me to read up on Punctuated Equilibria.
You do NOT know what I have already read or studied or understood about anything.
I have not only read about punctuated equilibrium, but have heard Stephen Jay Gould explain punctuated equilibrium.
That same Stephen Jay Gould whose most significant contribution to evolutionary biology was the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which he developed with Niles Eldredge in 1972. PS: Sorry about my "assumption." But as far as my "assumption" about how little you know about Niles Eldredge's career details, -please remember you gave only one quote of his out of what would have been a longer text.
Just so I don't have to "assume" you don't know more about him, would you please post the surrounding text where that one quote was contained? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 21, 2019 22:00:58 GMT -5
Of course, this is micro-evolution and is not disputed. The dispute among philosophers and scientists is macro-evolution. Disingenuous to not differentiate. Well, you're making micro progress. That's a good start.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 21, 2019 22:03:21 GMT -5
I'm all for compromising and getting along when possible, but the case for molecules-to-man is just so weak - it's actually laughable. Listen to the YouTube of David Berlinski at the Socrates in the City event (I posted a link somewhere). He had the whole audience laughing at the idea. God does use micro-evolution *but* this is possible due to information (DNA coding) and restraints already defined within the organism. Macro-evolution requires new information. Mutation doesn't work. Sorry. Look it up and try to find a mutation that was stable and beneficial. Regardless, it doesn't even matter. "It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations." -Niles Eldredge, PhD Paleontologist There is no such thing as (DNA coding) such a 1's and 0's there is only shapes which I don't think counts as code Shapes etc. count for codes on flags and company logos.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 21, 2019 22:10:25 GMT -5
Come to think of it, the most intriguing code that I've learned about in the old Incan method of sending messages.
They had a system of tying various knots in a string that could be read by someone who received the string. They had a rather advanced mail system throughout the empire which would carry these string messages from place to place. If I'm not mistaken, some collections of such "writings" have been found. But that's all I know about it.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 21, 2019 22:13:55 GMT -5
Evolution News & Science Today So, Who Is Doing “Pseudoscience”? Granville Sewell August 23, 2018 evolutionnews.org/2018/08/who-is-doing-pseudoscience/Excerpt Please do read this page (it is not hard to read, but here is an even simpler analysis of the compensation argument), and you will be astonished by how corrupt science can become when reviewers are “very, very vigilant” to protect consensus science from any opposing views. And you can decide for yourself who is promoting pseudoscience. “consensus science” evolutionnews.org/tag/consensus-science/Conservapedia Consensus science www.conservapedia.com/Consensus_scienceExcerpt Science writer Michael Crichton said: "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Why consensus science is anti-scienceby Jerry Bergman creation.com/why-consensus-science-is-anti-scienceExcerpt One of the major methods employed to oppose critics of Darwinian theory is the consensus science argument. Consensus science is the claim that evolution is true because it is agreed by the proper authorities, meaning that most all scientists accept evolution; and, therefore, opposition to Darwinism is ‘obviously’ as foolish as claiming that the earth is flat.1 A typical example of the consensus claim is a statement by the National Academy of Science that “The scientific consensus around [Darwinian] evolution is overwhelming”, and, therefore, ideas that oppose it are properly censored.2 References 1 Ravitch, F., Marketing Intelligent Design; Law and the Creationists Agenda, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2011. 2 Anonymous, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, 2nd edn, p. 28, 1999. (understandably "anonymous") Germ Theory is overwhelming scientific consensus, but there still people (including people with scientific and medical degrees) who will claim that germs do not cause disease, and the idea is a lie perpetuated by big pharma. Ought we to take them seriously as well? They have loads and loads of 'evidence'. Likewise, the Round Earth Theory is overwhelming scientific consensus, but that doesn't stop the formation of the flat-earth society. A scientific 'consensus' doesn't mean that something is complete and settled, but it does mean that the majority of experts who have studied in the field agree on it. And usually, it is best to operate under the impression that the consensus is the best version of reality, unless you have compelling evidence that this is not so. When stacked against the evidence for evolution by natural selection, the evidence for intelligent design quickly breaks down.
From my personal perspective, I could see design insomuch as the fundamental laws that govern matter and energy seem to be mathematically predictable, and just as a Rube Goldberg machine can cause the drop of a ball to produce fresh buttered toast, a singularity could, governed by the intelligent rules of physics and math (essentially existence vs. non), "predictably" produce all that we see here. The order of intelligence that would be required to achieve a predictable result from that sort of Rube Goldberg machine is unfathomable, and insert faith, and humble awe at the unknown and vastness of reality. For our intents and purposes though (limited by our own pathetic intelligence and capabilities), evolution by natural selection seems to most accurately explain things from the macro to the micro.
Seeing as nearly every scientist in Darwin's day was a Christian, I imagine that they would've loved nothing more than for Darwin to be wrong. Indeed, Darwin became a timid hypochondriac prior to publication, and letters from his wife suggest she would be very disappointed in his "anti-God" ideas. If he wasn't sent an identical summary of the same theory of evolution by natural selection by a colleague Wallace (who arrived independently at the identical conclusion of Darwin), he may have never been pressured to present his theory. So, if it's so obvious that intelligent design is the proper and scientific interpretation of events, and it is simultaneously a conclusion which would've caused overwhelming acceptance of Darwin and other scientists, and would've confirmed the literal biblical events they had been taught since children, you either have to believe that it is the world's biggest fraud, perpetrated in bad faith against the church by the same scientific process which gave us Germ Theory and the round earth, or you have to believe that the most educated and experienced individuals in the field of biology are also the dumbest people on the planet.
As to the 'nipples on man' (and the host of other oddities of the intelligent designer), an intelligent design would be to leave them off. I'm not inclined to believe the thought that it would look funny. And no matter the genetic determinant, the issue of them being useless from a "design" perspective is inescapable.
At least some women like some mens' chests. In a conversation over sexuality, a woman friend of mine wanted me to know that.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 21, 2019 22:19:31 GMT -5
Germ Theory is overwhelming scientific consensus, but there still people (including people with scientific and medical degrees) who will claim that germs do not cause disease, and the idea is a lie perpetuated by big pharma. Ought we to take them seriously as well? They have loads and loads of 'evidence'. Likewise, the Round Earth Theory is overwhelming scientific consensus, but that doesn't stop the formation of the flat-earth society. A scientific 'consensus' doesn't mean that something is complete and settled, but it does mean that the majority of experts who have studied in the field agree on it. And usually, it is best to operate under the impression that the consensus is the best version of reality, unless you have compelling evidence that this is not so. When stacked against the evidence for evolution by natural selection, the evidence for intelligent design quickly breaks down.
From my personal perspective, I could see design insomuch as the fundamental laws that govern matter and energy seem to be mathematically predictable, and just as a Rube Goldberg machine can cause the drop of a ball to produce fresh buttered toast, a singularity could, governed by the intelligent rules of physics and math (essentially existence vs. non), "predictably" produce all that we see here. The order of intelligence that would be required to achieve a predictable result from that sort of Rube Goldberg machine is unfathomable, and insert faith, and humble awe at the unknown and vastness of reality. For our intents and purposes though (limited by our own pathetic intelligence and capabilities), evolution by natural selection seems to most accurately explain things from the macro to the micro.
Seeing as nearly every scientist in Darwin's day was a Christian, I imagine that they would've loved nothing more than for Darwin to be wrong. Indeed, Darwin became a timid hypochondriac prior to publication, and letters from his wife suggest she would be very disappointed in his "anti-God" ideas. If he wasn't sent an identical summary of the same theory of evolution by natural selection by a colleague Wallace (who arrived independently at the identical conclusion of Darwin), he may have never been pressured to present his theory. So, if it's so obvious that intelligent design is the proper and scientific interpretation of events, and it is simultaneously a conclusion which would've caused overwhelming acceptance of Darwin and other scientists, and would've confirmed the literal biblical events they had been taught since children, you either have to believe that it is the world's biggest fraud, perpetrated in bad faith against the church by the same scientific process which gave us Germ Theory and the round earth, or you have to believe that the most educated and experienced individuals in the field of biology are also the dumbest people on the planet.
As to the 'nipples on man' (and the host of other oddities of the intelligent designer), an intelligent design would be to leave them off. I'm not inclined to believe the thought that it would look funny. And no matter the genetic determinant, the issue of them being useless from a "design" perspective is inescapable.
At least some women like some mens' chests. In a conversation over sexuality, a woman friend of mine wanted me to know that. Well goodie for you, Lee!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 21, 2019 22:26:22 GMT -5
You're a good little nihilist. The concept of holiness and becoming a human being consists of being aware of ideals. Def: of nihilist.
Nihilist
-total rejection of established laws and institutions. -anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity. -total and absolute destructiveness, especially toward the world at large and including oneself
Which one of those definitions are you saying characterizes me, Lee?All of them. The world is left up to chaos apart from any ordering assumptions. Declaring oneself to be atheist is a deceptive act of recusing oneself of who and what humankind ought to be. Atheists tend to be the biggest antichrists. One exception I know of is declared atheist Tim Sandefur of Sacramento. He assumes humankind has a nature, and laws can be based upon said nature. By putting his money down so to speak, he participates in the theistic argument. Thus the bigger issue is creation worship. In creation worship we effectively become self worshipers. In this paradigm we have no ideals. The relationship between atheism and creation worship is the vacuum. In the vacuum of atheism people are more prone to creation worship.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 21, 2019 23:31:48 GMT -5
Def: of nihilist.
Nihilist
-total rejection of established laws and institutions. -anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity. -total and absolute destructiveness, especially toward the world at large and including oneself
Which one of those definitions are you saying characterizes me, Lee? All of them. The world is left up to chaos apart from any ordering assumptions. Declaring oneself to be atheist is a deceptive act of recusing oneself of who and what humankind ought to be. Atheists tend to be the biggest antichrists. One exception I know of is declared atheist Tim Sandefur of Sacramento. He assumes humankind has a nature, and laws can be based upon said nature. By putting his money down so to speak, he participates in the theistic argument. Thus the bigger issue is creation worship. In creation worship we effectively become self worshipers. In this paradigm we have no ideals. The relationship between atheism and creation worship is the vacuum. In the vacuum of atheism people are more prone to creation worship. I certainly do not "totally reject established laws and institutions."
Can you show where I have done that in any posts I ever made?
Nether can you show where I ever advocated "-anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity"!
And of course it is totally ridiculous to claim that I subscribe to "total and absolute destructiveness, especially toward the world at large and including oneself.."
How can anyone even insinuate such characteristics apply to me just because I cannot believe in some illusionary supernatural entity?
All of your allusions as to atheism resulting in creation worship is erroneous and just wishful thinking on your part.
Why is it wishful thinking for you, Lee?
Simply because you cannot believe I nor anyone else can be "GOOD WITHOUT GOD"
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 22, 2019 10:16:30 GMT -5
Of course, this is micro-evolution and is not disputed. The dispute among philosophers and scientists is macro-evolution. Disingenuous to not differentiate. Not at all. What do you think many micro changes does? Many over a long period of time equates to macro in the long term. Why do you deny that?
|
|