Richard Dawkins answers questions at Randolph-Macon Woman's College

[OzmO]

Good work, NeoSeminole, holding down the fort of science and reason

Good work, Beach Bum, holding down the fort of "reading between the lines"   

[loco]

Good work, Beach Bum, holding down the fort of "reading between the lines"   

Funny, OzmO is not a religious fundamentalist.  He is not a creationist.  He is genuinely seeking the truth and demanding proof of macroevolution, proof that humans evolved from apes, or an ape like thing.  Yet NeoSeminole and columbusdude82 have been unable to persuade him.  Where is the proof?

[loco]

Perhaps this will help clear things up a little, on both sides.

You will find that those who believe in evolutionary thought absolutely believe in microevolution. Interestingly, those who subscribe to intelligent design also believe in microevolution.

How is microevolution different?

Microevolution is a built in adaptability that all creatures have to adjust to certain changes. An example would be a species of insects that become resistant to pesticides or birds that adapt to a new climate.

According to a Berkley website, "Biologists who study evolution at this level define evolution as a change in gene frequency within a population." [1]

If this were the universal definition of evolution perhaps there would be a consensus on the subject. However, those who subscribe to intelligent design see microevolution as consistent with a 'good' design of species, but separate from common evolutionary thought. If, within a species, creatures can be observed adapting to their environment this may be evidence that the design of the species was more than adequate for the needs of the species.

Intelligent design proponents can agree with microevolution because it is observable within species.

So why don't intelligent design proponents accept evolution?

Intelligent design advocates believe that evolutionists make a significant jump when they assume that microevolution (which is observable) is the smoking gun for macroevolution (which is not observable).

Microevolution is observable and is consistent with both intelligent design as well as evolutionary thought.

The difference is intelligent design supporters contend that the species that may be adapting to its environment still remains the same species. They contend it is a leap of faith to assume that 'species adjustment' is in the same category as the development of a new species.

Evolutionists contend that what is observable in microevolution helps explain the origin of species through natural selection. In essence, the thought process is, "If it can happen on a small scale certainly the same principle applies to species evolution."

The difficulty

The problem with making this assumption is that no one has yet observed one species developing into something new. Certainly we can see a variety of different dog breeds, but they are still dogs. We see genetically altered rats with mice DNA, but they are still rodents. We see a variety of horse breeds, yet they are still equines.

Final thoughts

Microevolution is a wonderful means of seeing how adaptable all species are in the face of an environment that may threaten their existence. This process is observable and may be classified as a true miracle of science.

Or…

Perhaps species adaptation looks designed because it is designed.

[1] Evolution.berkeley.edu/

  Scott Langley

[loco]

When Moyers later asked, "Is evolution a theory, not a fact?", Dawkins replied, "Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening."  Bill Moyers et al, 2004. "Now with Bill Moyers." PBS. Accessed 2006-01-29.

Yes, evolution has been observed happening around us, during our lifetimes. For example, have you heard that some HIV strains that are resistant to meds have evolved?

That is microevolution.  Those new HIV strains are still HIV strains.  They did not evolve into something new that isn't an HIV strain.  And just because they are resistant to meds does not mean that they are superior or more complex than the HIV strains which they evolved from.  This is an example of mutations and mutations very rarely produce positive changes. 

Even creationists accept microevolution as fact.  It is Macroevolution that is cause for debate.

Macroevolution has never been observed while it is happening.  There is no proof to support it as fact.

[OzmO]

Funny, OzmO is not a religious fundamentalist.  He is not a creationist.  He is genuinely seeking the truth and demanding proof of macroevolution, proof that humans evolved from apes, or an ape like thing.  Yet NeoSeminole and columbusdude82 have been unable to persuade him.  Where is the proof?

Yeah loco,  being that much of western culture is rooted in Christianity and the creationists vs. evolutionists debate has been raging ever since Darwin published his theory I would think that proof of humans sharing a common ancestor which looks like an "ape"  would be front page news all over the world, in would be a spectacular discovery.

But we haven't seen that have we?

So pretty much it seems Neo and C-82 are just regurgitating the same arguments found in this grand debate as the evolutionists haven't establish reasonable proof when words like "predict" and theory are still used.   

[columbusdude82]

What is it called when lots and lots and lots of little microevolutions accrue over millions of years?

[loco]

What is it called when lots and lots and lots of little microevolutions accrue over millions of years?

That is called "a leap of faith"...or "religious dogma"

Nice theory, but until you show us hard evidence that microevolution leads to macroevolution, it still remains a theory and it is not by any means a fact.  There is no proof that microevolution produces new, unknown species.

Macroevolution has never been observed while it is happening.  There is no proof to support it as fact.

[columbusdude82]

"Religious dogma"? Hardly.

I would much rather say, "logical conclusions drawn from overwhelming evidence."

[loco]

"Religious dogma"? Hardly.

I would much rather say, "logical conclusions drawn from overwhelming evidence."

Where is this so called "overwhelming evidence"?  This?

What is it called when lots and lots and lots of little microevolutions accrue over millions of years?

Where is the "overwhelming evidence" in this?  You drop a ball on earth lots and lots of times, and observe that it falls every time, and you may conclude that the next time it will again fall.  That is a logical conclusion.  Observing lots and lots of little microevolutions only tell us that they have and will continue to happen.  It does not prove that it has or will lead to macroevolution.  It has never been observed to lead to macroevolution.  There is no proof to support this.

So, to conclude that lots and lots of little microevolutions yield macroevolution is only a theory, with absolutely no proof.

Evolutionists accept this theory as fact, that because we have observed microevolution we must believe that it has and that it will lead to macroevolution?  We must accept this as fact, without any proof, and we are not allowed to question it?  Anyone who dares question that this theory is fact is automatically labeled an idiot who rejects science?  How is this different than the Roman Catholic priests who threatened and belittled you when you questioned Catholic dogma?

[columbusdude82]

You don't have to accept it as fact. You are welcome to inform yourself on contemporary biology. Professor Dawkins has several brilliant popular science books on the subject, including "The Selfish Gene," "Climbing Mount Improbable," and "The Blind Watchmaker."

Before dismissing one of the most brilliant living scientists, you might want to take a minute to inform yourself on his work, especially when he has written such brilliant books for the layman.

You can question any theory all you like. That doesn't make anyone an idiot. After all, that is how science makes progress: by questioning all theories. However, when you propose theories of your own that are refuted by mounds of scientific evidence, you should expect someone in the room to giggle

This is not dogma. It is backed up by evidence, unlike, say, the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection. So quit trying to equate reason and science with religion and superstition

[Dos Equis]

Good work, Beach Bum, holding down the fort of "reading between the lines"   

 

fyi - I'm going to read this book:  http://www.amazon.com/Billions-Missing-Links-Mysteries-Evolution/dp/0736917462/ref=sr_1_1/102-2747542-9259361?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190225443&sr=8-1

[OzmO]

Wow,  in following this discussion I'm getting the idea that evolution as a fact is in some ways a belief just as creationism.

Are there things similar to evolution in science that have been proven as fact such as discoveries in genetics?

Becuase the main argument of evolutionists seems to be "overwhelming evidence points to it as being a fact"

But why isn't it a fact?   Like heredity?  Don't we know for a fact that characteristics of a son were handed down from his father?  Can't we verify this as fact?   Why can't the same be applied to evolution?   Is the overwhelming evidence incomplete?

Just thinking out loud here and trying to understand why there's still a legitimate debate from both sides.

[OzmO]

fyi - I'm going to read this book:  http://www.amazon.com/Billions-Missing-Links-Mysteries-Evolution/dp/0736917462/ref=sr_1_1/102-2747542-9259361?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190225443&sr=8-1

Cool,  Next time i'm at borders I'll see if they have it.

[loco]

You don't have to accept it as fact. You are welcome to inform yourself on contemporary biology. Professor Dawkins has several brilliant popular science books on the subject, including "The Selfish Gene," "Climbing Mount Improbable," and "The Blind Watchmaker."

Before dismissing one of the most brilliant living scientists, you might want to take a minute to inform yourself on his work, especially when he has written such brilliant books for the layman.

You can question any theory all you like. That doesn't make anyone an idiot. After all, that is how science makes progress: by questioning all theories. However, when you propose theories of your own that are refuted by mounds of scientific evidence, you should expect someone in the room to giggle

This is not dogma. It is backed up by evidence, unlike, say, the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection. So quit trying to equate reason and science with religion and superstition

So, you admit that the theory of macroevolution is not fact.

When it comes to Biology, Dawkins is a brilliant scientist.  That I know.  Yet, he has presented no proof for macroevolution.

It is only when it comes to his war on religion that Dawkins is a nutjob, and other secular scientists agree.  But that is a topic for another thread.

Still, you have presented no proof to support macroevolution, or any proof that humans evolved from an ape like species.

[NeoSeminole]

Dude you posted pictures of animals.  Even the person who posted the pictures on the websites doesn't categorically call them transitional fossils.

sorry to dissapoint you but humans are animals. I'm not sure what you were expecting. As for the pics, did you even bother to read the link?

"All of the hominid fossil skulls above clearly show transitional forms between an old extinct common ape ancestor and modern humans, and these skulls represent only a small fraction of the fossil evidence. There is not only more fossil skull evidence, but there is also a lot of other skeletal evidence showing transitional forms for the spine, pelvis, hand, foot, etc."

[Necrosis]

loco intelligent design relies on no evidence at all, it relies on the fact that we dont know everything and that evolution is not complete like all science.

if evolution is not correct why assum god did it? why not thor, why not any other god.

then you also have to posit positive evidence, or at least rational evidence for god, why there is a god, and how.

i have faith, but its not rational, and you cant really argue for it, ive always conceded that.


im too sick right now to form a cogent argument, but nothing in this world works on irrationality. its safe to assume that everything has a logical explanation since nothing in this world defies logic or rational, why argue that god did it? this defies logic and assumes that supernatural power was used one time, and everything else relies on natural laws.

[NeoSeminole]

More animal pictures.  But thanks for sharing.

no shit they are pics of animal bones. I was responding to your comment about the lack of transitional fossils. Here is your original post in case you forgot.

If there was this mass transition from one species to another, that resulted in all of the human and animal life we have today, there would absolutely be evidence in the fossil record.  We have tons of very old fossils, but absolutely none proving macroevolution.

[loco]

loco intelligent design relies on no evidence at all, it relies on the fact that we dont know everything and that evolution is not complete like all science.

if evolution is not correct why assum god did it? why not thor, why not any other god.

then you also have to posit positive evidence, or at least rational evidence for god, why there is a god, and how.

i have faith, but its not rational, and you cant really argue for it, ive always conceded that.


im too sick right now to form a cogent argument, but nothing in this world works on irrationality. its safe to assume that everything has a logical explanation since nothing in this world defies logic or rational, why argue that god did it? this defies logic and assumes that supernatural power was used one time, and everything else relies on natural laws.

Hey, usmokepole!  I do not disagree with your post.  We are simply debating whether or not there exists proof to support that the theory of macroevolution is fact, and whether or not there is proof to support that the theory that humans evolved from an ape like species is fact.

Hope you get to feeling better!  

[Dos Equis]

sorry to dissapoint you but humans are animals. I'm not sure what you were expecting. As for the pics, did you even bother to read the link?

"All of the hominid fossil skulls above clearly show transitional forms between an old extinct common ape ancestor and modern humans, and these skulls represent only a small fraction of the fossil evidence. There is not only more fossil skull evidence, but there is also a lot of other skeletal evidence showing transitional forms for the spine, pelvis, hand, foot, etc."

Check your vernacular Neo.  Humans are not animals in this context.  

Did you even bother to read the excerpt from the link you posted?

"Below is a series of skulls believed to be from the recent human family tree. Not all of the skulls are believed to be direct ancestors of modern humans. The first skull is actually that of a modern chimpanzee. The exact classifications of the skulls are listed below. Those in bold are thought to be direct ancestors of modern humans."

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/understanding_evolution.htm#Evidence_of_Evolution

See the parts I put in bold (again).  These are nothing more than the skulls of animals (i.e., not humans) and the quotes from your own link even confirm this is pure speculation ("believed to be" . . . "are thought to be").  

[Dos Equis]

no shit they are pics of animal bones. I was responding to your comment about the lack of transitional fossils. Here is your original post in case you forgot.

Those are not transitional fossils.

[NeoSeminole]

Macroevolution has never been observed while it is happening.  There is no proof to support it as fact.

you are so f*cking stupid that it's comical. If we follow your logic, then a large percentage of criminals - murderers, rapists, etc - should be let free since there were no witnesses. Let's do away with proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hell, why stop there? We should go back to worshipping a sun god since there's no direct proof the sun will rise again tomorrow. At best, we can only predict its reoccurance based on past evidence.

[loco]

you are so f*cking stupid that it's comical. If we follow your logic, then a large percentage of criminals - murderers, rapists, etc - should be let free since there were no witnesses. In fact, let's do away with proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hell, why stop there? We should go back to worshipping a sun god since there's no direct proof the sun will rise again tomorrow. At best, we can only predict its reoccurance based on past evidence.

Come on, NeoSeminole, name-calling and insults don't prove anything.  We are having a good discussion here.  Let's keep it civilized.

[NeoSeminole]

Check your vernacular Neo.

on the contrary, I know what I'm talking about. You're the one who needs to check his vernacular. Transitional does not refer to fossils that are directly between ancestor and modern species. Rather, trasitional fossils display characteristics that are both shared by and unique to 2 different species.

[NeoSeminole]

Those are not transitional fossils.

yes, they are.

[columbusdude82]

Wow,  in following this discussion I'm getting the idea that evolution as a fact is in some ways a belief just as creationism.
...

A bodybuilding message board is hardly the place to learn science. Go to your library, watch the Discovery Channel, read a good science book!