Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is evolution so controversial?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(7)
Message 27 of 969 (723958)
04-11-2014 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Cedre
04-10-2014 7:02 PM


Re: Yes a growing number of scientists!
And truth is not a popularity contest, consensus is not how truth is arrived at, otherwise you're just left with a argument from consensus/popularity!
But you brought it up. It's true that truth isn't a popularity contest, but since you tried to make it so with your fantasy that "a growing number of scientists are frowning upon the modern synthesis", it's fair enough for us to point out in reply that if truth was a popularity contest we'd be winning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Cedre, posted 04-10-2014 7:02 PM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 12:07 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 54 of 969 (723999)
04-11-2014 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Cedre
04-11-2014 12:07 PM


Re: More confusion!
I wasn't making an argument from popularity. I simply said more scientists are questioning Neo-Darwinism. Now if I had said because more scientists are questioning Neo-Darwinism, therefore Neo-Darwinism is wrong, then you could charge me of making an argument from consensus. The reason I said this was to show how evolution is contentious.
Which would be an argument from unpopularity.
If it was true. Is it true. You say "more" and a "growing number". Do you have any evidence that the number is growing, or that there are, let us say, more this year than last year?
Or is your unsubstantive point simply a daydream that you'd like to believe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 12:07 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 63 of 969 (724011)
04-11-2014 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Cedre
04-11-2014 12:30 PM


Elite
It is however being questioned by elite scientists!
Elite scientists? Ah, the Argument from Popularity with the Cool Kids.
OK, let's see what the scientific elites are actually saying.
"Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision." --- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Acadmie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Acadmie des Sciences et Techniques du Sngal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Fsicas, Matemticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 12:30 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 73 of 969 (724026)
04-11-2014 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Cedre
04-10-2014 4:29 PM


Robert Camp goes looking for controversy :
Of the 158 initial query emails sent over two days I received 73 responses, 45 of which included comments (Table 1). [...] Over 97% of the responding Bio dept. heads answered in the negative affirming that there is no scientific controversy at their institution (Table 1). Just one individual (1.4%) hedged by allowing that there was one faculty member who publicly supports ID (see Comments), but this observation was followed by the assertion that the vast majority do not consider ID scientific and thus see no scientific controversy. And one individual (1.4%) responded with a positive recognition of a scientific controversy. It must be noted that this lone Yes response came from a theological medical university.
So perhaps, Cedre, instead of asking why evolution is so controversial, you should be asking why it isn't --- since the explanation for real things is usually more enlightening than the explanation for imaginary things.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Cedre, posted 04-10-2014 4:29 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(6)
Message 98 of 969 (724075)
04-12-2014 11:15 AM


Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
Perhaps Cedre could answer my question. Why is evolution so uncontroversial? Its enemies, after all, are impelled by religious fanaticism, a force that has built and destroyed empires; they have powerful political forces on their side, such that they can make mere congressmen jump through hoops; they have vast financial resources (which they put into building "museums" and amusement parks, but that's their choice); and they have had a hundred and fifty years to find a flaw, however minor, in evolution; and yet as we have seen among scientists they have stirred nothing but the faintest flickering ember of controversy, which needs constant nurturing to ensure that it doesn't go out.
Why, then, is evolution so uncontroversial among scientists despite the best efforts of a powerful, determined, and well-funded lobby to make it so?

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Cedre, posted 04-12-2014 11:19 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 04-12-2014 11:26 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 126 of 969 (724111)
04-12-2014 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Cedre
04-12-2014 11:19 AM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
Contradiction bliss!!
If creationists are as powerful as you claim then shouldn't evolution be more controversial not less controversial (you say its not controversial at all)? If what you're saying is true Creationism should be taught in universities and science classes across the nation. Creationists should be winning hearings and court cases! Creationists should be able to publish in peer review using their powerful connections! This is not what we see, more often than not is derided by the president no less. What power do they really have? I don't see it!
What I am asking is why, despite the determination, power, political support, money, and numbers which they evidently have, they can't sway the scientific community. Your reply, apparently, is that since they can't sway the scientific community, they can't have the determination, power, political support, money, and numbers which they evidently have. But they do.
Creationism should be taught in universities and science classes across the nation. Creationists should be winning hearings and court cases! Creationists should be able to publish in peer review using their powerful connections! This is not what we see ...
So you agree, at least, that there is in fact little or no scientific controversy. Good. Then instead of asking your question, we should indeed be asking mine: why is evolution so uncontroversial?
Even granted your claim (which I do not grant) that creationists are a feeble and impotent political force, there would still have to be a reason: things don't achieve scientific consensus just because the opposition is a bunch of pathetic jerks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Cedre, posted 04-12-2014 11:19 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 127 of 969 (724112)
04-12-2014 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Faith
04-12-2014 11:26 AM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
I'll tell ya why it's so "uncontroversial" as you put it. It's because it's unfalsifiable ...
But if this was true, rather than being a drooling halfwitted lie, then evolution would be monumentally controversial, since testability is universally recognized as a sine qua non for an idea to even be a candidate to be a scientific theory.
Cedre is of course right that complexity can't be explained by evolution, which is self evident to anyone who can think ...
So you claim both that evolution is unfalsifiable and that it's self-evidently false?
Could you not at least make your dumb lies self-consistent?
... self evident to anyone who can think ...
So, apparently you can think, whereas (for example) the seventy-two Nobel laureates who served as amici curiae in Edwards v. Aguillard can't.
Well, I'm wondering ... if you're actually smarter than 72 Nobel laureates put together, what exactly have you done with your enormous intellectual talents? Apart from dribbling out halfwitted nonsense on the Internet, I mean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 04-12-2014 11:26 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 138 of 969 (724133)
04-13-2014 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Faith
04-13-2014 12:19 AM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
Yeah but the likelihood of finding a land animal that deep in the geologic column is so small as to make that a worthless test.
It's only unlikely because the theory is true.
Evo: John is dead.
Creo: How can you tell?
Evo: Usual way, no pulse, no breath, body at room temperature.
Creo: But your theory is unscientific, it's unfalsifiable.
Evo: What? It could be falsified in many ways ... he could get up and do a jig. He could talk to us. He could, I dunno, start wrestling with a small yak.
Creo: Yeah but the likelihood of him doing that is so small as to make that a worthless test.
Evo: The likelihood is small because ... he's ... dead.
Faith, you seem to be confusing being unfalsifiable with being un-false. This explains a lot of your ridiculous ramblings on this subject.
In the dialog above, we can imagine lots of ways to falsify "John is dead". This makes it plenty falsifiable. But none of them is at all likely to happen. This is because, although it is falsifiable, it is not false.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 04-13-2014 12:19 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 04-13-2014 2:31 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 141 of 969 (724137)
04-13-2014 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
04-13-2014 2:31 PM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
No, silly, it doesn't verify evolution because even on the Flood model we wouldn't expect to find a cow in the "Precambrian," otherwise and much more rationally known simply as one of the lowest strata in the geologic column. That was my point, do pay attention.
Your "point" involved insane babbling in response to the claim that "Finding a cow in a Precambrian layer would be a falsification of ToE". Do pay attention.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 04-13-2014 2:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 178 of 969 (724227)
04-14-2014 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Taq
04-14-2014 3:59 PM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
Indeed. However, when you fail to find a single mammal, from a cat to a gopher to a rabbit, in the Devonian or anything below it . . . I think a light bulb should go off.
A sudden moment of endarkenment?
Or do you mean "on"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Taq, posted 04-14-2014 3:59 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Taq, posted 04-14-2014 11:11 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 194 of 969 (724254)
04-15-2014 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Faith
04-15-2014 10:58 AM


Re: Back to earth
The Devonian period experienced the first significant adaptive radiation of terrestrial life.
Here we go, into the wonderful fantasyworld of evolutionist interpretation presented as fact, a completely fictional time period described in terms of supposedly real happenings during it based only on some fossils found in some rocks here and there.
And, of course, on the fossils not found in it. Prove us wrong by finding a cat, a giraffe, a horse, a hippopotamus ... wait, I'll make a list. Here are some of the animals you could find in Devonian rocks that would blow the whole thing apart, this is just the mammals, but you can't expect me to do all the work for you:
Echidnas, Platypus, Opossums, Monito del montes, Rat Opossums, Marsupial Mice, Dunnarts, Tasmanian Devils, Tasmanian Wolves, Numbats, Marsupial moles, Bandicoots, Rabbit-eared Bandicoots, Possums, Cuscuses, Gledero, Ringtails, Pygmy possums, Ringtail possums, Kangaroos, Wallabies, Koalas, Wombats, Noolbengers, Elephant Shrews, Hedgehogs, Gymnures, Moles, Desmans, Tenrecs, Golden Moles, Solenodons, Shrews, Flying Lemurs, Colugos, Old World Fruit Bats, Flying Foxes, Mouse-tailed Bats, Sac-winged Bats, Sheath-tailed Bats, Bull-dog Bats, Fish-eating Bats, Hollow-faced Bats, False Vampire Bats, Yellow-winged Bats, Horsehose Bats, Noseleaf Bats, Leaf-nosed Bats, New World Leaf-nosed Bats, Moustached Bats, Naked-backed Bats, Leaf-chinned Bats, Funnel-eared Bats, Smokey Bats, Disc-winged Bats, Sucker-footed Bats, Common Bats, Short-tailed Bats, Free-tailed Bats, Dwarf Lemurs, Mouse Lemurs, Sifakas, Indri, Woolly Lemurs, Aye-ayes, Weasel Lemurs, Koala Lemurs, Lorises, Pottoes, Tarsiers, New World Monkeys, Marmosets, Tamarins, Old World Monkeys, Gibbons, Humans, Great Apes, Tree Shrews, Anteaters, Sloths, Armadillos, West Indian Sloths, Two-toed Tree Sloths, Three-toed Tree Sloths, Pangolins, Scaly Anteaters, Aardvarks, Pikas, Hares, Rabbits, Mountain Beavers, Beavers, Squirrels, Chipmunks, Marmots, Prarie Dogs, Scaly-tailed Squirrels, Spring Hares, Rats, Mice, Voles, Gerbils, Hamsters, Dormice, Bamboo Rats, African Mole Rats, Birch Mice, Jumping Mice, Jerboas, Pocket Mice, Kangaroo Rats, Pocket Gophers, Blind Mole Rats, Old World Porcupines, Guinea Pigs, Capybaras, Coypu, Pacaranas, Pacas, Agoutis, Chinchilla Rats, Spiny Rats, Chinchillas, Viscachas, Octodonts, Degu, Tuco Tucos, Cane Rats, Grasscutters, Dassie Rats, Old World Porcupines, Agoutis, Gundis, Blesmols, African Mole Rats, Dogs, Wolves, Foxes, Jackals, Bears, Racoons, Weasels, Otters, Skunks, Badgers, Mongooses, Civets, Genets, Hyenas, Aardwolves, Cats, Eared Seals, Sea Lions, Walruses, Seals, Ganges and Indus Dolphins, Amazon River Dolphins, White-fin Dolphins, La Plata Dolphins, Ocean Dolphins, Porpoises, Narwhal, Beluga, Sperm Whales, Beaked Whales, Grey Whales, Rorquals, Right Whales, Pygmy Right Whales, Manatees, Dugongs, Elephants, Hyraxes, Horses, Zebras, Asses, Tapirs, Rhinoceroses, Camels, Pigs, Peccaries, Javelinas, Hippopotamuses, Chevrotains, Mouse Deer, Deer, Giraffes, Cattle, Sheep, Goats, Antelopes.
Why don't you have a look? Why doesn't any creationist have a look.
Because, it seems, you are absolutely certain that the fossil record will support real geology and the evolutionary time line in every single respect. Sitting on your lazy asses whining about reality may be -- in fact, let's be clear about this, it is --- a complete waste of time, but looking at the fossil record would also be a complete waste of effort. Deep down, you people know that it's never going to help you. The only thing to do about that is to resolve the cognitive dissonance this knowledge produces by talking nonsense. Fortunately, you're good at that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 04-15-2014 10:58 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 196 of 969 (724256)
04-15-2014 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by RAZD
04-15-2014 11:36 AM


Re: Back to earth
I think a valid objection to the cow test is that it is not something that MUST occur if the ToE is false.
But this is true of any proposed falsification of any theory at all. What MUST happen if the theory of gravity is false? Er.. who can say?
We can say what may happen if it's true, what must happen if it's true, and what can't happen if it's true, but no-one can say what would happen if it was false.
Nested hierarchies are a prediction of the ToE, so finding fossil or genetic evidence that cannot fit into nested hierarchies would counter the prediction and need to be explained by some other mechanism.
Yes, but again you can't say that that MUST happen if it was false, you can only say that it can't happen if it's true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2014 11:36 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by RAZD, posted 04-19-2014 4:16 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 203 of 969 (724275)
04-15-2014 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Faith
04-15-2014 10:58 AM


Re: Back to earth
The idea that it is to be expected from the Flood comes from evolutionists because of course you all have a big problem thinking outside your interpretive box.
To be precise, we have a big problem in believing that water can do absolutely anything that you, Faith, want it to do. Perhaps you could demonstrate this power by ordering water to climb out of a glass and jump through a couple of hoops. Until then, we shall continue to think that the action of water is constrained by the laws of hydrodynamics rather than by your wishes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 04-15-2014 10:58 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 215 of 969 (724308)
04-15-2014 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Faith
04-15-2014 5:40 PM


Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial? Redux
Perhaps we could get back to the topic or some semblance of it, rather than a general discussion of your ignorance of ... well, everything.
Asked to explain why evolution is so uncontroversial among scientists, you replied:
I'll tell ya why it's so "uncontroversial" as you put it. It's because it's unfalsifiable ...
Now, even you with your pathetic ignorance of the scientific method must have gathered that scientists consider unfalsifiability to be a bad thing. A very bad thing. A fatal flaw in the pretensions of any idea to even be considered as scientific.
So your answer is as though you were asked "Why is chocolate cake so popular with gourmets?" and replied "Because it is made out of shit, tastes revolting, and causes nausea and projectile vomiting in all those unfortunate enough to partake of it". It's not just that your answer is false, it's that if it was true it would not explain the phenomenon it's purported to explain, but rather would render it utterly inexplicable.
So, would you like to try again? Why is there so little scientific controversy over evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Faith, posted 04-15-2014 5:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 04-15-2014 9:45 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 219 of 969 (724313)
04-15-2014 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Faith
04-15-2014 9:45 PM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial? Redux
Falsifiability is one of the hallmarks of genuine science.
Just as not being made of shit is one of the hallmarks of good food. So if your ridiculous nonsense was actually true, it would not explain the absence of scientific controversy over evolution, just as the postulate that chocolate cake is made of shit would not explain the popularity of chocolate cake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 04-15-2014 9:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024