Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution

Willowtree, once again you seem to imply that every scientist that accepts evolution is an Atheist or Agonistic. This is false. Also you imply that all scientists that accept evolution are working together to try to prove evolution to everyone else.Then you claim that evolution and theism can never reach a middle ground. With this statement you insult about half the people in the US. The very fact that these people exist proves your argument wrong. First of all the language used on this forum is almost always understandable to people that haven't had any formal education in the sciences. Also I’m sure that the people on this forum would be happy to explain something in layman terms if you ask them. You may not understand the language used by a physicist but it doesn't mean they are trying to deceive you.

Double post[This message has been edited by Rand Al'Thor, 01-03-2004]

Actually Ned I changed the quote from "identical" to "virtually...."Milton wrote "identical".Pertaining to the wolf skulls I duly note your disagreement with Milton. I understand your contention that the skulls are "similar" which if true would pretty much gut Milton's ultimate point.However, Milton provides drawings of the three sets of creatures in question here with their alleged "virtually identical" randomly mutated counterpart.The drawings of the marsupials are almost identical as is the drawings of the moles, but the wolf skulls are depicted to be "identical".As I said in my posts I am an ordinary person in my level of science
capabilities, which makes the evidence and my ability to understand it tethered to this level. I side with evidence that supports my worldview UNLESS a preponderance of facts is given that overrides the bias.While the validity of your arument is apparent, the preponderance of evidence is still clearly in favor of Milton in my eyes.Who am I to trust in the evaluation of the similarities of the wolf skulls ? You or Milton ?Now, Milton did not claim or even address the genetic issues that you raised. I being a rank amateur, a know nothing, in the field of genetics know that genetic duplicity would be absurd. To interject the DNA level into this argument of "virtually identical" is changing the subject ?Milton's point about probabilties was a clear rifle-shot assassinating the contention that random mutations would produce these identical creatures on two different continents.

Why use Milton's drawings when we were given a site with pictures of the skulls side by side and from all angles. They are not identical as noted when that was first brought up. This is especially true from below.I don't remember seeing a reference to Milton's drawings. If they are identical and the actual skulls pictures are not that needs to be explained.Note that we were discussing what Milton had to say. He said "virtually identical" and needing a zoologist to distinguish. From the pictures (not drawings that he made to support his view) and my experience (me not being a zoologist and not having the skulls in hand) he is wrong.If you want to say yourself that they are "similar" (at the skull level) I agree. You are more accurate than Milton which, since you don't claim any expertise, tells us something about Milton as a source. But it appears that all you're taking as the evidence is Milton's own drawings not actual pictures of the skulls. (Of course, having the skulls at hand would be the best). I can't actually tell about this. That is why I asked a series of questions about what his references to mutations and probabilities meant. There is some hint that he is suggesting the improbability of it because, of course, duplicated mutations would be wildly improbable.If he is only suggesting the improbability of the "similarity" of the overall appearance and form of the two animals then he isn't saying anything much at all. He is then only arguing from his own incredulity with no evidence that things are in anyway improbable.

---

Common sense isn't

Not only do you fail to address or even acknowledge the majority of the points I’ve raised in this and preceding posts, but you have completely misunderstood my argument in the one case you do address. Perhaps I was unclear.I am not in any sense downgrading the threshold of scientific scrutiny, or making a case for special pleading in accepting the evidence of evolutionary biology. On the contrary, I tried (evidently inadequately) to show how evo bio uses the exact same techniques to derive its evidence as the sciences you and Milton claim are valid sciences. Just as every hypothesis in these sciences are validated by observation — cosmology observing each postulated stage of star formation, for example, or physicists showing consistent results as they test the properties of their postulated particles — evo biology does as well. It CAN and HAS demonstrated, through long-term field observations or laboratory experiments, every single postulated mechanism from inheritance to development to speciation. It DOES have corroboration from a multitude of different, un-related fields — from molecular biology to paleontology to geology. As a simple example, every single postulated stage in the development of the vertebrate eye has been show to be both practical and possible through observation of living organisms that possess eyes of each type. This is what is meant by demonstration in historical science. Evolution IS harder to demonstrate — that’s why the evidence in favor of the theory is so compelling — it HAS been demonstrated. Evo biology actually operates under more stringent constraints of evidence than particle physics — an electron will always be an electron, whether it is part of a star or part of my hand, and thus will be easy to demonstrate. To be able to generalize in evo biology, since organisms are individually and severally unique entities, a much vaster number of observations must be made. The fact that these observations HAVE been made, and are consistent with each other, lends powerful support for the science.Catastrophists, OTOH, have been unable to demonstrate or even come close to providing evidence for their ideas. In actuality the cold hard facts from geology, etc directly refute the claims of catastrophists. The rocks don’t lie. Genetics doesn’t lie. Developmental biology doesn’t lie. Biogeography doesn’t lie. Direct observation that contradicts catastrophism is as unequivocal as the evidence for the existence of Earth itself. Which species is Milton talking about? Not all cuckoos are nest parasites (the eastern yellow billed cuckoo of North America Coccyzus americanus, for instance), and not all populations of cuckoo migrate (like the great spotted cuckoo of Europe and Africa Clamator glandarius, whose populations only migrate at the ends of the species range). IOW, Milton appears to be oversimplifying. However, be that as it may, I’m not sure why the inheritance of a behavior — if plausibly genetically based — would be a problem for evolution since it is one of the main tenets. Perhaps you can explain.

At the risk of repeating what others have said I'm a scientist who is also a Christian. I believe in God, in Jesus etc and I believe in evolution. I'm a Roman Catholic. I asked our priest about Creation, he said he believed in evolution. I asked our Archbishop about Creation, he said he believed in evolution. Now, I'm not trying to say that evolution must be right because these people believe in it, all I'm saying is that it is possible to be a Christian and an evolutionist. I can't reconcile the two of them. As we understand Creation theory today, Creation theory and evolution are mutually exclusive, it's either one or the other. However what I can reconcile is the possibility that Creation as described in Genesis has been described wrongly by the MAN who wrote it down. Maybe it's allegorical. Doesn't it say somewhere that a thousand years is but a day to the Lord? I don't know how they can be reconciled for everyone, but I can reconcile them for myself and blame the fallibility of Man who recorded the events that he wasn't present at.

Welcome to our friendly little discussion.You may find this thread interesting: The Roman Catholic Church and Evolution

---

Common sense isn't

quote:

---

I side with evidence that supports my worldview UNLESS a preponderance of facts is given that overrides the bias.

---

LOL It seems to be extremely difficult to imagine willowtree changing his/her worldview when that worldview includes the escape clause that any evidence which is offered which contradicts said worldview is a fallacy concocted by conspiring atheist evolutionists.No wonder a crackpot like Milton is so attractive to willowtree.

Boy, go away for two weeks and look what you miss.I have a couple questions for you WILLOWTREE, based on this statement that you have repeatedly made. Specifically, lets look at this portion of the quote; Now, why is it that you accept that he is not a creationists simply because he claims not to be, but you refuse to believe that a evolutionist can claim to be a theist?So I guess I'm just a little curious. Why you would think that the claim of one individual (Milton) has any more validity than the claim of another (say...Trixie, for example)?

I was wondering if post #116 has anything worthy that deserves some type of response from yourself.This is your topic - you created it.

And I was wondering if post 124 does. Even a link to the drawings might be helpful. Since they are all the evidence you apparently have and we haven't seen then yet.

---

Common sense isn't

Any person can claim to be whatever they want.This obviously includes a theist who embraces evolution.The only objection/challenge I make is for these theistic evolutionists to plainly declare and justify what their religious admission brings to this debate.Why even reveal ones theism if it has no relevance to the subject ?This is exactly what happened in another debate topic. Some debater barged in said they were offended that I unjustly labeled TE "cowards".You cannot graft theism on to anything. Theism is a source not a branch.The person I challenged went on this self- righteous checklist rant which included a straw man argument about God wanting humans to use their brain. Still absent was the only thing I asked for: relevance of their theism in the debate.In his book Richard Milton plainly dismisses creationism as "people who always want to talk about the meaning of life."He views all religion as inferior pursuits - not an option for "we" Mensa types.Milton admits he has no alternative explanation for the origin of species.I am convinced that he has no ax to grind for creationism which makes him extremely exciting independant corroboraton of my starting assumption.

You, I believe, said that only atheist "believe" in evolution. Theists who agree that evolution has occured and occured in the way biologists have learned it does are a complete rebuttal of that statement. That is how it is relevant.

---

Common sense isn't

The drawings I offered in written description were in Milton's book opposite page of the text in question.I do not know how to post these pictures from the book and I do not know of a Milton link that has them.Ned: I completely understand what you have been saying.You are saying/challenging Milton's assertion that the wolf skulls ARE NOT anywhere nears identical. You claim they can easily be construed similar but that is it.Milton says they are "identical", you say they are "similar".I say if you are indeed correct, that if Milton intentionally misrepresented their "identicalness" then I would be forced to concede the point to you.If it is required that I need to refute your claim then by this standard I will probably lose on these grounds.However, shouldn't it be the other way around, that the burden of proof in this type of situation to be on you ?

What else does Ned need to do to cover the burden of proof that you say is on him. Milton made a claim that has been shown to be patently false. The skulls are no where near "identical".I am assuming that the drawings in Milton's book make the case for "virtually identical". If this wasn't deliberate, then why use drawings when photographs are readily available. Is is possibly because the photographs do not show what is being claimed?

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato