Welcome Sockra. Of course not all the conversation here is of the highest quality, as we tend to banter some, but don't be hasty. There are many good minds and interesting people here including a few lunatics that come and go. You'll know who is who soon enough. 

Don't be afraid of repeating what is already here. We do it all the time. I'm sure whatever you say will have some other spin on the subjects. And if not, somebody will likely post for you a link to the thread pertaining the subject matter you have brought up.

Also it is very hard to tell what is in a thread just going by the title. Many times the subject matter will change quite quickly inside a thread. If you do find an old thread you would like to address, don't be afraid to resurrect it.

We are usually happy to get new posts from a fresh outlook, so don't be shy about starting a thread on anything you like.

Welcome!
Just don't expect EVERY conversation to be of the quality of the one you read already. You'll be disappointed.

Funny how I read right thru that without realizing it.  I guess I'm not the only one.  You've saved me from sounding like a dumbass more than once Extreme.

x

Hi,

Obviously as a Chrisitan I understand that you're dead wrong on the issue of the historical Jesus issues, but i do have respect that you atleast attempt to be consistent to your epistemology and history via the Mishnah. There was a Jesus, we both agree.

I had a chance to discuss this with a Jesus Seminar "scholar," and it is interesting since they have the same presuppositions as the Historical Jesus guys. He admitted that their black ball voting via what is and isn't is in reflection to what god they wish to make in their own image. This was also reflected in one of his works.

Though why you are more consistent then say most, you are not consistent within your professed means of what is. And perhaps as you continue, we will have a chance to discuss this.

Welcome.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Of course, you do know that there are Positive Atheists and Negative Atheists, right ? Positive, meaning the declaration that there is no god and can not be. Negative, (which many of us are) who simply say that in the absence of all evidence the logical default position is disbelief.

Check out the video on the home page that explains the difference between an agnostic, a negative atheist and a positive atheist.

Much obliged for the referral. I am still working on a notion that "theism" or  even "deism" is our human answer to the main questions "Whence the Universe?" and "Whence You and I?" (Of course a load of sub-questions, such as, "Can something spring from nothing?" fall under here). But my feeling is to truly live without a god, truly "a-theistically" is to live without an answer to these questions. One's "theism" is simply one's answer to these questions. If "chance" is the force, or dynamic, or mechanism, that explains, then 'chance' is your theism. Chance is your "god", of sorts. But if you believe in the dynamic of chance, but add that 'chance' does not explain everything, does not explain Whence Universe? or Whence Life?? then it is just a natural process within Nature, and the questions still stand. I find that problematic as I think "chance" is not evidenced in Nature; we infer it exists by evidenced eventualities and we attribute these events to - what I assert to be, a supernatural force * - 'chance'. I tend to cringe when people suggest "chance" explains things.

Yes, I know - it can't be supernatural if it "happens" in Nature, but is it 'natural" if it can't actually be evidenced by science in Nature, as opposed to an inference we place on the science we see?

Much obliged for the welcome danatemporary.

I am well aware I need to tread carefully. I'm certainly not on a mission to destroy Evolution Theory. In my mind some of it certainly still can stand the test of time. I have a problem with allegations of evidence of speciation over mere adaptation. It raises my suspicions when, around the racecourse, papers are shown to me where some birds are flying around aa continent and one specimen is caught and seen to be the same species as another but with different coloured wings. The conclusion? of course: speciation. But I stop and consider: no, that appears to be adaptation, not speciation.

Moreover, I come across argumentation that suggests, for instance the near identical DNA homology between chimp and man can ONLY be explained by lineage-descent from a common ancestor. I personally don't see the "only way" logic part... to me that is not biological science, that is speculation, "natural philosophy", and the onus of proof should be severe.

It is things like this that stall me, but I will learn more and more no doubt.

Suffice to say, abiogenesis is unexplained. The living cell is hellish complicated but study of cellular organelles and of other micro-organisms indicates Eukaryotes are symbiotic communities formed as parasitic organisms gave up their free form life and took to living in share houses. To my mind the pivotal development in multicellularity is cellular junctions. The complexities remain tangled but the underlying material biochemistry of life shows it is constructed of the same elements and molecules as those found on the Earth. There is nothing supernatural about life. 

Given you agree that microevolution takes place, I think there's a key factor you are not taking into account and that factor is time - vast spans of time. Macroevolution is Microevolution x Time. You also need to take into account that fossilization of species now extinct supports the notion all modern creatures are descended from older ones which have altered to suit changing environmental pressures. It's estimated 99.9 per cent of fossils are of creatures that are extinct yet ecological niches are teaming with new life. 

Also consider fossils are very rarely formed. The dead animal needs to be covered in sediment within 24-48 hours - preferably in an anerobic environment. These stringent conditions and the fast work of scavengers ensure fossils are most commonly found in tar pits, mud wallows, esturine river mouths, and the like. But there are fossils that are clearly intermediate forms. Whales with vestigial legs, for instance. Hominids that are clearly closer in appearance to the concestor of chimps and people. Birds with feathers. 

Evolutionary theory is multi-disciplinary and profoundly challenging but all the hypotheses relating to natural selection interlock and there has never been a piece of evidence found that does not support the over-arching theory. Rejection of evolution requires a person take on, with no evidence whatever, a supernatural cause for all life. Given your apparent commitment to empirical scepticism, plumping for a possible supernatural explanation just because there is not enough empirical evidence might burst your credulity meter. 

I think when you say you are trying to prove to yourself that evolution is more 'science than religion' you give away a flaw in your thinking. The empiricist does not need to be completely right and does not need to have faith. The current best modifiable hypotheses can be considered to be the best explanation a person has in the absence of total certainty. There is no threat of death or torment for getting it wrong. In fact, the acceptance there is no absolute certainty is a good first step, in my opinion. The idea of truth, to me, is a commitment to be open to new evidence.  

Something else to bear in mind is that modern science is no more than 400 years old while life is closer to 3 billion. But advances are being made. Along with the attempt to map the 100 billion neurones in a human brain, another current project I love is the attempt to reverse engineer a complete genome in order to establish which genes represent its earliest reproducible forms - cellular and molecular. Advances in computer science - quantum computing in particular - will redraw our ability to model the past.

As for there being no relics, there are definitely relics. Fossils in sediment and amber are treasures from the pages of Earth's scrapbook, slammed shut on living forms tens, hundreds and thousands of millions of years ago, preserving past lives with exquisite delicacy, inviolate and indubitable. 

Well if a naked woman were on the altar of an Evolution Church, I would want to count her toes first - on all twelve of her feet.

I used to be a Mystic Mythicist but got tired of wiping my spittle off my computer screen, so I converted.

Empiricsm is a pretty handy tool for doing the empirical work of science. When it comes to making conclusions from the empirical work, I find a lot of gods and angels come sliding in.

I have had some people chaff at my discussions on Evolution and argue that since I do not have a degree in biological science I really can't comment authoritatively on Evolution. To which I generally respond that a degree in biology allows you to do the (empirical) science authoritatively and make direct empirically derived conclusions; it does not allow you to speculate - with impunity - upon the science with philosophical authority or logical integrity. A nice degree in Philosophy might be the recourse for that ambition.

(Are you really sure Evolution has no naked woman on the altar?)

As to evolution, you have to separate the evidence from the theory. The fact of fossils is the older they are the more different from animals today. If they are old enough they are entirely different from today. Those are facts of what is called evolution for lack of a better term.

Theories explain facts. There have been several theories of evolution. The theory proposed by Darwin has been the most successful in explaining the most facts. The redneck alternative of creationism regardless of its guise is a complete failure as an explanation for the facts.

If that is all then you have no issue at all. The definition of species is arbitrary. We can call all the African, Asian and American species of lion a single species by simply changing the definition of species. Scientists love to define things as finely as possible on the assumption of useful.

A working defintion of existing species is they are different species if they either cannot or do not interbreed. African lions and tigers can interbreed, tigons and ligers. They do not occupy the same territory so they do not. Chiclids do occupy the same rivers but do not interbreed but are so similar it is difficult to imagine they can not.

So when fossil hunters find clearly different but related by bone shapes separated by millions of years calling them different species is a name choice. It started long ago when the fossil record was very incomplete and the idea they were related was not established so species was a very likely correct term. Now that it is much more complete fossils named different species in the past are being consolidated into single species.

These are things you won't know unless you follow the subject. Creationists never follow the subject but if they do then they are liars. There is no middle ground; at least none they present. 

I agree with very much of this. And yes I am finding that the "species naming" is getting to be crucial as to whether speciation occurs or not, which is why ET and those claiming such speciation evidence exists must be kept close watch of. It is that "consolidation" process that disturbs me. It happens much too quickly and, I believe, without scientific justification.

No matter how long the highway goes from Denver to Salem and Boston, at some point it simply must fork. For chimp and man to come from one antecedent species, at some point back in time there was a fork. It can fork in Colorado or Mass., no matter, but it simply must fork. We need to ask: where have we ever evidenced one species give rise to TWO species except in an imaginative theory?

I have followed the subject well enough to see the evidence of mendacity and argument by authority all too often. Scientists study birds of a species in one country, then see a bird of the same species in another country but with some altered colourations and "Eureka!" they claim to be the famous scientists who have discovered the best evidence yet for speciation - proof that one species has changed into another. What they really found was two examples of the same species but with differing environment adaptations. And yet, their paper gets included in the canard: "there is just so much evidence... it is undeniable!"

The problem for me is that with some of what ET is proposing, it is not a case of the fossil record being incomplete, as the fossil record not being there at all. These connecting species appear to be missing. Yes, I have encountered attempts to present adapting fossils - fossils that clearly belong within a species determination - as suddenly evidence of a transitional species but really, that is no different than Christian apologists demanding the Gospels are eye-witness accounts. We need evidence, not mere assertions.

As well, I would begin to suggest that the lack of evidence can now be presented as evidence against Darwin's Theory: he himself wrote with dismay at the diggers not finding what he clearly anticipated to find. Not proof of error, just evidence that tends to that conclusion. If you claim a small Pacific island is a hotbed of civilized activity, and you arrive there and find no speck of human occupation past or present, I'm not sure 'incomplete evidence' describes the situation. Would you allow the evidence for God is lacking or incomplete?

Alas, my problem is that there is very little evidence to separate out of (macro) Evolution theory. There are an immense number of fossils evidencing the glorious array of species tha have existed, and some still do. But that is all. That is all we can deem from the fossil record: what the species were and roughly when they existed. When Evolution begins to play connect-the-dots with descendency, it needs a great deal of evidence, especially when counter-intuitive propositions of a species giving birth to TWO species are proposed. A dynamic that has not been evidenced in nature and yet... how many antecedent species are claimed to have done this? Millions? Billions? Trillions? All the way back to a Single Common Ancestor that did some incredibly slow Big Bang and slowly speciated it all?

Does it really sound like we have the evidence sown up for these speculations?

I certainly can accept that argument were I ever to intrude upon the biological sciences and make challenges upon the science. I simply ask for the same leeway when these overworked experts stray from the science they do so well and begin to offer invalid arguments and sloppy reasoning. At that point, I challenge them to go back and separate the real science from the wild speculations and learn, from philosophy, how to argue from premise to valid conclusion.

Fully agree with you and your past girlfriend! Ideas are not physical evidence. I am reassessing Evolution Theory now and trying to separate idea from science. As I said much before, I am finding a lot of religion in ET, and I value Science too much to let it slip by without pointing my finger at it.

Thanks for the Josephus link!! I look forward to indulging.

Welcome, Sokra, good to see you.

Forgive me if I am unjustified in saying this, but you seem to be a creationist masquerading as only being a skeptic.

We have often had disquised Christians come on the forum pretending to be Atheists.  Of, course Christianity and Creationism is not always linked, but it is the most common combination we see here.

You seem to fight the Theory of Evolution in regards to speciation from one ancestrial species into two or more descendent species based simply on claiming that the theory is incomplete, vague, or not grounded in science.  This is the normal methodology recommended by fundamental christian based think tanks on how to fight against the ToE.

If I have understood your line of reasoning, you think that there are never any branching among the animal kingdom.  That, well obviously except for the 99 percent of species that are extinct, every species alive today had an ancestor alive 500 million years ago that was the same species.  The only difference in relatvely minor variations.

I find this baffling.

There have been no known fossils of Homo sapiens, rabbits, cows, dogs, apes, monkeys, horses, giraffes, elephants, camels, penquins, walruses, eagles, vultures, shrews, mice, wolves, well you get it, 200 million years ago.  But we have found thousands upon thousands of species of animals that lived back that long ago.

Where do you contend they all magically came from?  God or aliens?

Oh, also about your mention about the Cambrian "Explosion".  The "explosion" happened over a period of 70-80 million years and is a wonderful example of punctuated equilibrium.  Another wonderful example of punctuated equilibrium is the Mammallian Explosion that has been occuring over the past 65 million years since the dinosaurs mostly died out.  Resulting in, along with other less noteworthy humans,  the two of us existing.

Really attaching the word "explosion" on either of these events is unfortunate.  The Cambrian radiation is now known to not have been as rapid as once thought. Indeed, statistical analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals' history.

I suppose I would say they are an intriguing anomoly. They obviously are quite important in reminding us to be aware of what we mean by the term 'species'. They seem to evidence an adaption process that results in some interference or interruption of procreative ability. As an aside, I should think that if two parents gave birth to a daughter that grew up to be infertile (could not procreate), I would hesitate to suggest an evolutionary process was in evidence. I would think something genetic went wrong in this particular instance.

I suppose I would also caution that this is a far step from evidence that one species adapts into an entirely different species.

Could you explain to me why almost all fossils - especially the older ones - are of extinct creatures?

How is it that organisms from the past have died out yet ecological niches remain filled. 

Why is it so?

Also, could you explain why it is that genetic signatures show the relationships between not just between all life but between more closely related species.

How is it that humans are 98 per cent chimp yet only 92 per cent rodent, and just 64 per cent banana? Why can geneticists establish the specific genes that led to branching species?

Explain this in the absence of the theory of natural selection by environmental pressure on procreation... 

Also, outline for us what sort of material fossil record you would require to accept evolutionary theory. So you expect a similar material record for deist creation? 

As I'm sure you know, the creatures of the Cambrian are all extinct. Why is it so?

If you are being obtuse or simply failing to comprehend my point. The terrestrial herbivores of yesterday were dinosaurs. The terrestrial herbivores of today are mammals. The terrestrial carnivores of yesterday were dinosaurs but now they are mammals. But the 2 groups did not co-exist in the same ecosystems, occupying the same ecological niches. 

So, Sockra. Did god return and create mammals and grasses after the dinosaurs died out? Answer this one question with a straight yes or no.

I could take another stab at it with a different sense to your question. Here is a hypothesis for you:

At time X, Mammal Y roamed the earth. the climate conditions, and a million other variables were nicely right for Mammal Y to be 'selected' and prosper.

Then the climate changed drastically; the conditions altered very dramatically and sadly Mammal Y went extinct. The earth then went into an ice age.

At time X plus 2 million years, the earth warmed up and the climate conditions returned to somewhat time X conditions.

At this time, nature selects another species darn similar to Mammal Y, because of similar conditions etc.; call it Mammal Z. Some features are different; this time maybe carnivore instead of herbivore. Smaller legs, different colours, different style eyes..whatever. Different. Pretty darn similar, but different.

Mammal Z lives a million years and goes extinct.

We have fossils for both Mammals in their respective time periods. Their DNA homology is astounding similar, but then, is that a surprise since - though in different epochs - they formed under very similar conditions.

Now... I ask you:

Is this hypothesis I present, which stays very strictly close to the fossil evidence we have, more reasonable than invoking the Law of Continuity and thereby inventing a whole series of intermediary, imaginary, species between Mammal Y and Mammal Z - for which there is no fossil record - just to assert that Mammal Z was directly descended from Mammal Y?

I think evolution is far more sprawling and disjointed than you seem to be implying here. Let's say a particular reptile evolves through environmental selection of beneficial mutations to have what we label mammalian characteristics that support nocturnalism - fur and warm blood and live birth. At first there is only one of these species but as the weather gets colder and the dinosaurs' habitat changes and they die out, this single line of mammals branches out to exploit additional niches in the now empty ecosystem.

Some eat grass, some climb trees, some eat each other, some get big and some stay small. Some surf the Internet in an endless search for cosmic meaning, while eating chocolate biscuits. Over the history of their class - about 200 million years - they are divided by genetic speciation. Yet all came from one single species of rodent-like creature and this shared genetic identity can be seen in the fundamental similarities in their genomes. Ultimately, one creature was best suited to a changing environment and its ancestors and their multifarious genetic speciations came to predominate. 

These genetic bottlenecks and class developments are what both genetic and fossil evidence supports.  

Sokra, please don't ignore my questions.  I'm am honestly baffled by what you think the more plausible answer is.

There have been no known fossils of Homo sapiens, rabbits, cows, dogs, apes, monkeys, horses, giraffes, elephants, camels, penquins, walruses, eagles, vultures, shrews, mice, wolves, well you get it, 200 million years ago.  But we have found thousands upon thousands of species of animals that lived back that long ago.

Where do you contend they all magically came from?  God or aliens?

*Sigh*  

Anyway, I'm sorry, but I've "discussed" this issue with so many "gawd did it" individuals that I'm very tired of having the same discussion for the 7,843rd time with someone that I am still fairly sure is...well this may be taken as an attack or something...  You're trolling.   You think GOD did it.  That's what I believe you're coming from.  Your reluctance to answer my question above I take as further evidence that my assumption is correct.

You claim that you see no evidence for speciation.  Ok, well we have to first define species.   That's the big trick.  If you and I can't come to a mutually agreed upon definition that we will use for this discussion then we should not even pursue it.  If we can agree, then I will show you proven, scientifically verified, PEER REVIEWED, evidence.

That's something you might want to look into.   Peer Review.

Scientists don't allow each other to speculate or present an idea not based on proven hard data.

Scientists LIVE for finding the flaws, assumptions, incorrect premises, etc in other scientist's work.   If it is not documented as it happens, it didn't happen.   That's what scientists chant to themselves in their sleep.

If it is not presented for the entire global body of other scientists to pick apart and beat it to death, it isn't science.

There is no leap or fanciful thinking in established science.   There are tentative hypothesis' that are often proven incorrect but EoT is not a hypothesis.  We are more certain of the truth of the theory of evolution than we are of a sun centered solar system.  Literally.

Species.  Let's define it.   Because there is not one universally agreed upon definition.

The one that I normally operate under is that two different "kinds" of animals are different species if they cannot mate and produce sexually viable offspring.   Is this definition acceptable?

Actually no.  It doesn't.   And not JUST because that idea is based on no evidence.  It's just not what has been proven to be the case.

You're describing convergent evolution.  Does it exist?  Heck yeah, all over the place.

Is the DNA of two animals that are superficially and shockingly similar and fitting the same ecological niche the same over very similar compared to other animals?   Not even close.

Animal displaying convergent evolution to the common tiger:

Tasmanian Tiger:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thylacine

One of the most well documented series of intermediary fossil records:

Whale Evolution: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

No. I'm afraid this is an example of evidence by assertion, not evidence by fact. You have been told that sawfish are descended from sharks, and now you are asserting it to me. If I were to press you for evidence this assertion was true, you could easily point me to many papers that scientifically describe the similar DNA homology. These papers, after outlining the very similar DNA homology will then, in grand cavalier fashion, declare than homology proves descent.... Oh ... and it could ONLY BE THIS WAY.

I'm afraid that is not evidence, it is mere assertion: homology does not PROVE descent. That is the most major 'non sequitor' flaw that is massively pervasive in ET literature.

It is as this:

1) A dead body is found in the library; death by gunshot wound.

2) A gun is nearby, smoking still.

3) Forensic (scientific studies) are done on the gun; ballistics studies are done on the bullet. The body is examined by a doctor.

4) Police investigate the gun and locate the registered owner.

The argument form (as used by ET)  will be:

A) The murder was by gunshot.

B) The gun was used to do the murder.

C) The registered owner of the gun is the murderer.

An argument heavily backed by much scientific investigation. Very reasonable and very plausible. Case closed.

If you can see the hole in this, you may begin to see the holes in ET peer-reviewed papers. And the holes have nothing to do with the actual biological sciences involved. Just as the forensics in this case are no problem.

Ok, I think I understand what your flaw in thinking is.

You, for some reason, think that evolutionary scientists are first gathering facts and then, later coming up with an explanation to fit those fact.

They aren't doing this.

The strength behind the Theory of Evolution is it's power to make predictions BEFORE we have the evidence.

That's just good science.  Oddly enough, all of those thousands upon thousands of evolutionary scientists are not stupid.

If we have a theory that attempts to explain some aspect of the world or universe, which necessarily has to produce predictions based on that theory, is proven to be accurate over and over and over again, it becomes more convincing. 

The Theory of Evolution has accurately made thousands of predictions that when later tested, and the evidence is gathered, analyzed, prodded, peer reviewed, repeated around the world, is repeatedly unerringly proven true.

One prediction was the relationship between humans and chimps.  ToE predicted that we shared a common ancestor.  This is before we had most of the evidence we have today.

So, in order to test this evidence, we had a problem to solve.

Chimps have 24 pairs of chromosomes, humans have 23 pairs.  Moreso, all the other great apes (gorillas, bonobos, orangutans) had 24 pairs.  If the EoT was accurately describing how evolution works then we must account for that missing pair of chromosome.  Otherwise EoT is proven false.  We can't reconcile that with evolutionary theory.

So, decades after the relationship prediction was made, when we had discovered the structure of DNA, and had learned how to do genetical analysis, scientists took a look out both sets of chromosomes.

They found that if we split human chromosome 2 and inverted one section of it, it accounted for the difference.  Even more exciting, we found that no genes were lost from the fused ends of 2A and 2B driving a rock hard, undeniable fact that supported evolutionary theory.

PREDICTION PROVEN ACCURATE.

This is only one prediction.   The tip of the iceburg.

Actually, I do believe the opposite. With Evolution Theory we essentially have the Theory first, and then the "facts" are made to fit the Theory. (The only exceptions being, of course, Darwin and Wallace and so on who "discovered" the initial facts. From then on The Theory takes hold.)

With the chimp to homo sapien evogram firmly placed on the walls of school classrooms, generation after generation of school kids are told that this is the way, no matter what. People believe Evolution is true because they are told, from a young age, it is true, and by the way, you will need many degrees in Science to prove it false, so don't bother. There are clips on YouTube with Dawkins strutting around with great fervor and religious zeal trying to ensure that the religion myth is done away with and the Evolution myth is put in its place - though he erroneously calls it science.

But it gets worse. The poison spreads: the fossil record betrays Evolution. Darwin's expectations were not met by the fossil record. He knew it in his lifetime before he passed away. It saddened him. Now though, we can jig the Theory to try out a workaround. Like cosmology can turn one Big Bang into maybe a pulsing set of bangs, so ET can offer punctuated equilibriums. Sadly, that is not enough to actually fill the gaps. We need fossils to evidence the incredible number of mythical species dreamed up to fill the gaps. The fossils aren't there. Now, in days gone by, that would have necessitated a full re-think of the Theory. But ET is not science ; it is a religion. You cannot "re-think" a religion! And so, for the first time in modern Science History, science has declared.... "ignore it!" Some day in the future the fossils will arrive. Let us just wait for the facts to catch up with the Theory. (So you see, the Theory really does come first, and not only do the facts come second, but even if the facts don't come, the Theory still stands and we are told to just sit and wait it out.) This is what ET has done to proper Science: even when the fossil record, the gaps, provide counter evidence, the Theory is so important, counter-evidence is to be ignored. That is what is called science nowadays. What a disgrace...

I believe you are attributing the good work that biological scientists do to Evolution Theory. That is a way to give ET credence I suppose, but it is not quite fair. Biology is great science, and the study of DNA by biologists have given great achievements and advances. Absolutely. But that is science. Evolution has given us nothing but myth. Evolution has made no predictions; Evolution simply looks to the past and constructs a lineage mythology, AND it creates species that don't exist to do it. Evolution is poisoning the well of Science by deliberately introducing "myth as allegedly scientific explanation." Biology gives us predictability. Evolution gives us religion masquerading as science.

Evolution invokes evograms to persuade people that this lineage has actually taken place, but there is no science to support it. It is like pretending that Hydrogen descended from Helium. Why do we need to have a descent myth like this? Is it not possible to have Helium, and Hydrogen and that is all? That is certainly all for Science. Sure, helium and hydrogen have "structural homology" - they both have electrons and protons. What do we infer from that? Descent? Why?

I suppose I am cautious at the "thousands of scientists couldn't be wrong argument", or stupid instead of wrong. Consider the wide spread of atheism now. The underlying inference of atheism is that thousands and thousands of scientists then and now who believe/ed in god are also stupid. Issac Newton believed in God, and alchemy and more. Stupid was he?

If an atheist can believe thousands of theists are terribly misguided and wrong, it is not inconceivable that thousands of Evolutionists could be misguided. Especially if they have had that chimp evogram in front of their faces for decades: the kind of indoctrination that Dawkins yearns for in the schools.

I really can't accept that. Evolution has made no predictions I know of. Biological sciences have though. Many. I hope you aren't suggesting that Evolution "predicted" the sawfish was descended from the shark, and..... lo and behold... it is!" ? I wouldn't call that a prediction. It is only an inference, like the god inference. We should make a distinction between proper sciences - biological sciences, and Evolution. Evolution is speculation, not science.

There are many papers out there remarking on the chimp and man DNA homology. It is pretty darn close. Evolution says there is ONE, AND ONLY ONE explanation to account for this: common descent - descent from a common ancestor (as yet totally unevidenced in Nature. Unevidenced, but that's okay. We are told to just wait until the evidence arrives. Sound familiar? A borrow-over from Christianity maybe?).

But there is not only ONE way. Evolution itself tells us that. the other way is.... guess what?....

Natural selection. Nature selected chimps with 24 pairs. Nature selected homo sapien with 23 pairs. Why is that not a solution? Remember: for Evolutionists, 'natural selection' explains everything. What a tidy solution, since it is in the family so to speak - it is a premise within Evolution Theory itself, and it is more rational because we need not violate Occam's razor and invent a common descent species out of the supernatural world.

But no, if you want to go the supernatural route instead of 'natural selection', go ahead. Being a religion, Evolution can invent whatever it wants...all the way back to that Single Common Ancestor.

The more you look at Christianity, the more the evidence seems to disappear before you. Now, when you apply a rational, not evangelical, mind to Evolution....my oh my oh my...

one thinking this, but you make some very odd assertions, Sockra.

You seem to fail to understand the concept of modifiable hypothesis. You assert the fossil record 'betrays' evolution, you insist evolutionary theory is a religion and that science declares 'Ignore it!' when faced with things it does not know. You insist the gap fossils aren't there as if they will never be there, when tens of thousands of new fossils are discovered every year and many intermediates. You claim there is counter evidence for evolution but what you are doing is highlighting gaps in a record that is entirely self sustaining. No fossil evidence has ever been found that undermines evolution and if you have some I want to see it. 

You also seem to ignore the posts of others who offer you intermediate fossils. Just as you ignore the advances in the study of genetic speciation and even in the existence of the reptilian brain underlaying the mammalian limbic system and the primate neocortex in humans. We all know the science is incomplete but evolutionary theory is proven across multiple disciplines. You have even admitted it works within species but chose to deny there is a point when natural selection expresses genetic speciation even though Darwin's finches and Wallace's butterflies prove you quite wrong. 

I'm not sure what your core beliefs actually are and you seem to keep them close to your chest. As a deist I assume you believe some hypothetical external first cause created life. Yet you insist natural selection creates species and reject the idea of speciation as if natural selection by climate change/continental drift and other environmental pressure does not inevitably lead to it. You say there is no common ancestor yet we know the oldest life forms are archeo bacteria that existed alone on the planet for hundreds of millions of years. You ignore the fact all multicellular creatures are comprised of colonies of highly specialised Eukaryote cells, all, as far as we can tell, identical in primary form and function to Eukaryotes that are over 2.7 billion years old. 

Further, you call ET a lineage mythology but offer no proof of fossils that undermine its fundamental contention that life changes over time. You also insist science 'creates' creatures that don't exist when we all know it hypothesises their existence then searches for data to support its hypothesis. You say evolution is religion masquerading as science. You even suggest ET claims we evolved from chimps when quite obviously every living organism is the current latest model and we all know evolution doesn't work laterally but applies backwards in time. These feeble throwaways seem to me to betray your repeated assertions you are devoted to one true science or to rational thought. 

Sockra, if you have anything empirically new to offer that undermines the data supporting evolutionary theory, anything that is not a wave at a fossil gap or an assertion of your own opinion based on an appeal to complexity or an appeal to ignorance, now's the time to dish it up. 

Actually I do understand and accept modifiable hypothesis. That is what I ask more of from Evolution Theory. The Theory needs to be scaled back to the actual evidence we have and the violations of Occam's razor need to be acknowledged and we need to remove the species that are not proven to exist and we need to remove the speciation mechanism which has never been shown to exist in nature. Yes, I am all for modifying Evolution Theory - modify it back to proper Science. Intermediate fossils have not been found. Fossils have been found, and they require labelling. Temptation for mendacity will be great. What is an intermediate fossil? Pretending a hominid fossil is actually a fossil of some antecdent species pre-hominid is not Science; it is playing with evidence. Scientists, in an attempt to be the famous ones who have "proved" Darwin correct have pretended a species of bird has actually "speciated" and become another species. The news didn't make much of a splash as it was rather obvious it was a pathetic attempt to pretend two birds of the same species were "birds of a different feather." As an athesist, I am sure you are aware of the mendacities from religious apologists and their attempts to present speculations and inferences as facts. Do you really believe Evolution evangelists are immune from such motivations? Shouldn't we be on guard for people slipping the wool over us? I need fossils where it is evident they are ancestors or descendents of a different species. Just saying it is so, doesn't make it so: we know that with the god hypothesis don't we? Your so-called imtermediate fossils are nothing more than a shard of wood in a monestary that the monks claim came from the Cross. The pedigree of the actual thing is a matter of faith, not science. I say again: DNA homology does not PROVE descent. It is a gross non sequitor that I am hoping gets recognized more and more for what it is.

The finches and butterflies argumenst have been debateable as evidence for speciation. The intermediate fossils I have spoken to just now. As for ignoring science and advances, yes I ignore a great deal of it: the science that doesn't pertain to the Evolution theses I ignore, because that is science and it is valid and rational. It can be ignored as it doesn't impact. I do not ignore science that proves speciation and common ancestry from mythical species because there is no science to ignore. These things are being asserted to be true without evidence. That is my problem with The Theory. Assertions instead of evidence. That is the playground of religion. I do not want science to become religion. Though I am a deist, (I think?) I do believe such a god is "proven" in the heart through faith not science. There is no place in science, which studies the universe, for god. So, I am not trying to sneak God into Science; I actually want "him" kept out!! That is what worries me about the change of rules: that a supposition can turn into "scientific fact" without supporting evidence. That disturbs me. As said before, I am disturbed that the registered owner of the gun is arrested for murder. The registration is not evidence of murder. It is a non sequitor. The fossils do not evidence speciation; that is a non sequitor too.

Natural selection that can create one species is natural selection that can create a trillion species. Unless we solve the question of the mechanism of abiogenesis from square one, we cannot conclusively say one way or another how life forms. I suppose you are looking at a lawn of grass and saying, "Amazing what one grass seed can do!" And I say, "Huh? What makes you think this all came from one grass seed? Three months ago, I scattered several buckets of grass seed. The grass blades are growing independently - some slower than others". For all we know, deep in the jungles, new species are formig now. For all we know. New species are being "discovered" but how long have they been around?

Well, abiogenesis may 'change' over time. Which is just to say if a process that creates life in the first place is posited, how can we just assume it can only do it once at one single point in time and it's finished. Finis. Natural selection takes over from then on. No. isn't it a possible hypothesis that along with natural selection (being an ongoing process) that abiogenesis is also an ongoing process, so species are constantly being created... ergo punctuated equilibrium possibly? If a comet hit the earth and created incredible trauma, let's say 97% of all species die. After a few hundred thousand years or so, when the effects settle a bit.. is it possible that new life may form again? If so, that is a matter of abiogenesis - an ongoing mechanism. Descent isn't the only mechanism. Abiogenesis is its own mechanism. We close our eyes to that possibility if we pretend "descent answers all; move on folks; there's nothing more here to see... or discover." Science needs this spirit of inquiry; not blind allegiance to a Theory.

I have no fossils to present to undermine ET; I have no evidence to disprove ET... but we must play fair here. Do you have proof god doesn't exist? I believe I can undermine the logic of ET by simply exposing its unscientific character. The "assertion instead of evidence" nature of ET is plain and obvious to see. It is simply up to each one of us to decide if that is what Science should be. If so, you have no basis to stop a theistic scientist from arguing that God is abiogenesis. Your only possible objection would be that there is no evidence for god as abiogenesis, and the reply would be: so what? there is no evidence for speciation and YOU can assert it to be fact, so I can assert my suppositions to be fact too.

"But, you may say, there is  actually NO evidence for god being abiogenesis or god at all!"

"Well, comes the reply, god creates life, and abiogenesis creates life and we obviously see that life has been created, so there we have evidence of god."

Rationally, we shouldn't allow that but sadly, ET has changed the rules, and we no longer actually NEED evidence to call something fact.

I'm not trolling by the way. Does anyone else here see - though not agreeing - but actually SEE this problem about the new, post ET paradigm about scientific evidence? "We don't need evidence right now; it's enough the Theory is right. The evidence will come in the future." ???  Yikes.