Darwin and Evolution

pH

He doesn’t claim to disprove evolution, just some of its major theories that hold sway over the whole scientific community until nobody can even write a paper on a sample of rock they’ve dated using carbon 14 dating supposedly from the Cambrian era to only 30000 years old. They must throw out the paper because they don’t want to loose cred with the University for going against the accepted and held dear dates for those rocks.

You've made me laugh, nice one.

Seriously though Cambrian rocks with C14 dating? Seriously? This is a joke?

There's just so much wrong with that.

robindch

pH wrote: »

Seriously though Cambrian rocks with C14 dating? Seriously? This is a joke?

I think he's referring to the time when one of Ken Ham's mates (AFAIR) sent off a rock to a lab In Australia asking for it to be carbon dated. The results came back and -- lo, quelle surprise! -- they were wrong!

Needless to say the lab in question were well ticked off at the dishonesty when they found out what had happened, but so what? Deception's been helping creationists separate the gullible from their money for a long time.

Still and all, it's nice to see Milton's book languishing in 1,149,537th place in Amazon's sales.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote: »

I think he's referring to the time when one of Ken Ham's mates (AFAIR) sent off a rock to a lab In Australia asking for it to be carbon dated. The results came back and -- lo, quelle surprise! -- they were wrong!

Needless to say the lab in question were well ticked off at the dishonesty when they found out what had happened, but so what? Deception's been helping creationists separate the gullible from their money for a long time.

Still and all, it's nice to see Milton's book languishing in 1,149,537th place in Amazon's sales.

Further evidence of the atheist conspiracy, no doubt. Will we never cease our God-hating machinations?

conspiratorially,
Scofflaw

pH

robindch wrote: »

I think he's referring to the time when one of Ken Ham's mates (AFAIR) sent off a rock to a lab In Australia asking for it to be carbon dated. The results came back and -- lo, quelle surprise! -- they were wrong!

A rock?

Scofflaw

pH wrote: »

A rock?

A guy called Snelling submitted a Triassic (probably - he picked it up off a mine spoil tip) iron concretion as a "piece of fossilised wood" for C14 dating...

cordially,
Scofflaw

daveyjoe

Soul Winner wrote: »

He’s not against science; he’s a Science Journalist for crying out loud. He is also a member of Mensa and writes a column for their magazine. I suppose they all have an agenda too? Even Jonathan Wells who wrote ‘Icons of Evolution’ is put into the same camp and he has 2 PhDs one in Religious Studies at Yale University and one in Molecular and Cell Biology from UC Berkeley.

• Science Journalist - This is a self denoted title, it means nothing. I could call myself a science journalist
• Mensa Member - There are over 120 million potential members of mensa (according to mensa themselves). I know a few guys in mensa Ireland and to be honest the only thing it proves is that there vein enough to take a mensa test and they are good at taking IQ tests.
• Mensa Writer - Meh, it's a gentlemen's club.
• Jonathan Wells - Yeah, he has 2 PhDs (one which is totally irrelevant and perhaps hints at where his opposition of evolution comes from). He can be the U.S. president for all I care, he has contributed nothing to the body of knowledge known as 'science'. The pseudoscience of Aids reappraisal does not count!

Soul Winner

daveyjoe wrote: »

• Science Journalist - This is a self denoted title, it means nothing. I could call myself a science journalist
• Mensa Member - There are over 120 million potential members of mensa (according to mensa themselves). I know a few guys in mensa Ireland and to be honest the only thing it proves is that there vein enough to take a mensa test and they are good at taking IQ tests.
• Mensa Writer - Meh, it's a gentlemen's club.
• Jonathan Wells - Yeah, he has 2 PhDs (one which is totally irrelevant and perhaps hints at where his opposition of evolution comes from). He can be the U.S. president for all I care, he has contributed nothing to the body of knowledge known as 'science'. The pseudoscience of Aids reappraisal does not count!

So I should only read books on Evolution that don't attempt to blaspheme the God that is Evolution? Can't read anything that attempts to show another side of the argument? That would be boring though and you wouldn't have threads like this one.

My next books were going to be:

Intelligent Design - William Dempsey

Starlight and Time - D. Russell Humphreys

and

Bones of Contention - Marvin L. Lubenow

Any of these out of the question? Am I wasting my time reading them? Yeah?? No???

Part of the preface for Richard Milton's book reads as follows:

"Who do you have to be to have a voice about scientific research on which large sums of public money are spent? Who decides who you have to be? In what forum, or by what mechanism, can those voices of dissent ever be heard in science? It is not just outsiders who cannot be heard, it is dissenting members of the scientific professions themselves. In my mailbox are letters from biologists who are concerned by the teaching of Darwinism as holy writ and from medical men whose practices have led them to make medical discoveries having a bearing on evolutionary biology. They have sought to publicise these discoveries in journals such as Nature but have been universally rejected because their discoveries are anti-Darwinian in implication and hence counter to the ruling ideology in the life sciences. They have appealed to me - a non scientist - to help them gain publicity. It is worrying to learn that in countries like Britain and the United States, thought to be among the most civilised on Earth, some professional scientists can feel so isolated and ignored that they have to take their case directly to the public via the popular press. Equally, it is depressing to discover that in countries which pride themselves on their intellectual tolerance, it is impossible to voice scientific dissent without attracting this kind of response from those who perceive themselves to be the guardians of orthodoxy."

5uspect

It is not just outsiders who cannot be heard, it is dissenting members of the scientific professions themselves. In my mailbox are letters from biologists who are concerned by the teaching of Darwinism as holy writ and from medical men whose practices have led them to make medical discoveries having a bearing on evolutionary biology. They have sought to publicise these discoveries in journals such as Nature but have been universally rejected because their discoveries are anti-Darwinian in implication and hence counter to the ruling ideology in the life sciences.

Thats a very serious claim to make. Science is concerned with how the evidence is explained with theory. If new, repeatable, evidence is observed then it should (and is) published.

All scientific theories must be testable, there must be a way to show where they can be wrong. Intelligent design is not testable. There is no way of defining the designer or even infer design. Michael Behe himself has said in a court of law under corss examination that for ID to be considered science the definition of science must be changed to include astrology.

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote:

Now, I shall be interested to see whether you prefer to defend Morris, or to admit the evidence.

Well, it seems I have my answer.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Soul Winner wrote: »

DaveMcG wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Half way through. Will reconvene in the morning and watch the rest as I am bushwhacked at this stage, look at the time??? :eek: It is very interesting and I like Mr Miller's approach on the subject and he delivers it in a well balanced and coherent manner.

I think highly of that Ken Miller lecture, and I've watched it a couple of times because I also value his balanced approach. I think he also puts the creationist debate into an appropriate context - that if people think evolution=less religion=less morality=bad society then they'll oppose evolution even if they think its true.

Of course you should question the evidence, and be clear about what evolution says. How you go about that is your own affair. Miller's lecture, despite being mostly just about his experience as a witness in court cases relating to putting Intelligent Design on the science curriculum, I think does give a pretty honest perspective on the situation. As you say, he is clear on the need for everything in science (not just evolution) to be subjected to critical evaluation. I'm not sure that creationist-style arguments count as critical evaluation.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

And behind door number 4 is: Piltdown man! That is actually a good example of what you're talkig about isn't it?

Well Piltdown man was a piece of evidence, not a scientific theory, but I suppose it would be an example of how science works considering the Piltdown man was considered with great skepticism in scientific circles until 1953 when it was conclusively demonstrated that it was a fake.

Soul Winner wrote: »

He’s not against science; he’s a Science Journalist for crying out loud.

Well I didn't claim he was "against science", though I'm not sure how being a "scientific journalist" demonstrates some is not against science. One can surely claim to be a journalist about anything they wish to right about, that does not suppose support for what the subject is.

I said he appears to be more interested in selling his controversal books rather than scientific (or any other type of) discovery. From reading up on reviews of Milton's work he seems to make sensationlist claims in order to shift his books (kinda like Ann Colter), for example claiming that Roman literture was actually invented and written by the Victorians.

Soul Winner wrote: »

He is also a member of Mensa and writes a column for their magazine.

Again I'm not following how that would mean he anything about what he writes about and its connection to science. Mensa isn't a scientific organisation. Anyone with a high IQ can join Mensa, and there have been some pretty weird members. Mensa has nothing to do with evolutionary biology nor does membership of Mensa suggest any understanding of the topic.

Soul Winner wrote: »

nobody can even write a paper on a sample of rock they’ve dated using carbon 14 dating supposedly from the Cambrian era to only 30000 years old.

Well I'm not surprised, considering Carbon-14 dating is only useful in dating objects back 60,000 years or so :rolleyes:

Anyone dumb enough to attempt to date a rock from the Cambrian period (which was 542,000,000 years ago by the way) using Carbon 14 dating shouldn't be having his work published in the McDonald's Hamburgerler News Letter, let alone a serious scientific journal.

Though at least I can add radiometeric dating to the list of things Mr. Milton is apparently clue-less about. I must say I'm dying to read his book ....

Soul Winner wrote: »

It retails at around $16 say €12 but I got it from a library

Well I suppose at least you can say you didn't pay anything to read this nonsense.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think they would take away his funding.

Milton had funding? Funding from who exactly? And in what field of research?

Soul Winner wrote: »

About the same amount that you’ve read in relation to the Bible.

Ok, so would you agree that you are as ignorant about the theories of biological evolution as I am about the Bible?

Soul Winner wrote: »

No agenda here. Just a good way to pass a dull day.

Well no offence but your posts suggest otherwise. You have asked a lot of questions but you seem to be ignoring the answers.

Soul Winner wrote: »

You’re flimsy analogy has nothing to do with natural selection couple with random mutations only gravity and water.

Well I would imagine that is because you don't understand what natural selection is.

Natural selection is simply a process (any process) where the environment dictates a sorting of random events into an outcome that is decided by the criteria of the enviornment itself. Gravity and water as it were, in the case of a river. In biology, or other adapting, replicating systems, natural selection selects benefitical mutations in the same way it selects the best route for the river to follow.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

So I should only read books on Evolution that don't attempt to blaspheme the God that is Evolution?

Here is a crazy idea Soul Winner. You might want to start your voyage of intelliectual discovery by reading a book about evolution written by someone who actually understand the theory. An evolutionary biologist perhaps.

I'm certainly not saying that is the only book you should read, nor that you should agree with it all. But it is perhaps a place to start and at least you would understand the theory you are setting out to rubbish.

Of course that is if your motivation is to actually learn about Darwinian evolution, which judging by your posts so far, appears unlikely :rolleyes:

Don't you think it is a bit rude to waste all our time asking for and receiving long explanations on how evolution works when you in fact don't care?

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

So I should only read books on Evolution that don't attempt to blaspheme the God that is Evolution?

Evolution isn't a "god" -- it's a process and you do yourself no favors by insulting something that you claim, very unconvincingly, you want to understand.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Can't read anything that attempts to show another side of the argument?

You can read what you want. But just be aware that after 150 years of testing (a bit like electricity for example), very few areas of doubt remain and to a very great extent, there is no other side of the argument -- you can see evolution happening in the lab if you have a petri dish, a few days to spare and a microscope.

And so, in the absence of any serious doubt, people like Milton turn up who create it by misrepresenting what modern biology has learned. And they know that they'll convince people like you because they know very well that you'll never crack the spine of a book written by a real biologist.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Intelligent Design - William Dempsey, Starlight and Time - D. Russell Humphreys, Bones of Contention - Marvin L. Lubenow. Any of these out of the question? Am I wasting my time reading them? Yeah?? No???

You'll become very well informed about what uninformed or dishonest people think about biology. If that's you aim, then buy the lot of them with my best wishes.

daveyjoe

Soul Winner wrote: »

So I should only read books on Evolution that don't attempt to blaspheme the God that is Evolution? Can't read anything that attempts to show another side of the argument? That would be boring though and you wouldn't have threads like this one.

Your language amuses me, let me build upon your backhanded simile...

• 'The origin of species' is not a sacred document. Any scientist will tell you that Darwin got some things wrong, a scientist will be happy to acknowledge the errors.
• Darwin's original theory has grown quite substantially over the past 150 years as our knowledge of genetics and germ theory has increased.
• The scientific establishment would welcome a theory that flew in the face of evolution as long as the evidence has stood up to peer review.
• Scientists love to be proven wrong because it benefits science. Advancing scientific knowledge is always the goal.

Is any of the above true of religion?

Evolution is observable, backed by scientific evidence and welcomes critiques/criticisms/advancements that are backed by evidence. Creationism/ID says "God dun it" and offers no evidence whatsoever (Missing fossils is not evidence for creationism).

Soul Winner wrote: »

My next books were going to be:

Intelligent Design - William Dempsey

Starlight and Time - D. Russell Humphreys

and

Bones of Contention - Marvin L. Lubenow

Any of these out of the question? Am I wasting my time reading them? Yeah?? No???

Yes, you are wasting your time. Read a science book instead...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popular_science_books_on_evolution

eoin5

Scofflaw wrote: »

A guy called Snelling submitted a Triassic (probably - he picked it up off a mine spoil tip) iron concretion as a "piece of fossilised wood" for C14 dating...

cordially,
Scofflaw

I guess they never figured on getting in a rock for dating. Thats a bit like sending a man for a pregnancy test, or testing water for fingerprints. Black box testing is fun

lookinforpicnic

Soul winner you say you want to understand evolution, humbly admitting that you don't know all the facts, yet you pay no attention (none whatsoever) to all the very long (time consuming) thoughtful explanations entirely for your benefit, you don't show any comprehension, you don't respond to the refutations, don't even acknowledge them, instead you just repeat the mutterings of a nobody (no published articles concerning evolution or biology) who wrote a book. If you had to go for heart surgery would you ask for a plumber or a cardiologist?

As pointed out if you want to learn about evolution, read a book by an actual evolutionary biologist....is that unreasonable?

Also, if your going to argue against evolution and waste everyones time here (I just wasted about an hour and half of mine), at least make an effort in the first place to even remotely understand what your arguing against (a quick look over a biology text book maybe). Also, a tiny bit of appreciation for the effort that was put in at your request, would not be too much to ask...a little "cheers" every now and again maybe. Do you think atheists are below common courtesy?

Myksyk

Let's not be naive guys. We can guess pretty confidently that SW came to the science of biology with firm ideological preconceptions. He is interested, like others we know, in confirming his own biases. He came to the forum with a fairly flimsy cloak of reasonableness and inquiry but I think we can say that's been shed. It is a measure of the man that he does not want to read books on evolution while at the same time claiming he wishes to understand it.

Ciaran500

Soul Winner wrote: »

So I should only read books on Evolution that don't attempt to blaspheme the God that is Evolution? Can't read anything that attempts to show another side of the argument? That would be boring though and you wouldn't have threads like this one.

My next books were going to be:

Intelligent Design - William Dempsey

Starlight and Time - D. Russell Humphreys

and

Bones of Contention - Marvin L. Lubenow

Any of these out of the question? Am I wasting my time reading them? Yeah?? No???

TBH I wouldn't bother. From what I have seen of any creationist text they completely mislead the reader, ignore evidence and disregard anything that goes against their preconceived answers.

Why not read up on the actual science before reading books like that? As has been shown by this thread when you read a book like Milton's you get a warped view of the actual science and makes the science seem very unreliable.


But I assume this advice and all the others in this thread is going to be completely ignored as you sound like you have already decided what is correct even though you don't understand the science.

Also how about you respond to some of the criticisms and explanations instead of posting like they never happened. Its starting to sound like you are just trolling.

sdep

Soul Winner wrote: »

So I should only read books on Evolution that don't attempt to blaspheme the God that is Evolution? Can't read anything that attempts to show another side of the argument?

I think there are people posting in this thread who have quite an in-depth knowledge of both 'sides of the argument' over evolution, and who have concluded that evolution offers the best explanation. Remember that just because an argument has two sides, it doesn't mean they are equally valid.

You say that your understanding of evolution is very incomplete, and that you have read one book on the subject which gives a minority view that almost all scientists see as undermined by a wealth of evidence. I think you would be right to follow your own suggestion and read something that shows 'another side of the argument' before making up your mind.

Soul Winner

Soul Winner wrote: »

Does anybody have actual proof that Evolution is the answer to how we came to be? Is there any photographic evidence that shows how life came to be on this world?

Are ‘Random Mutation’ and ‘Natural Selection’ contradictory terms? If they are then why are both positions held up as the proof for Evolution? If they're not then how do you reconcile them?

What is the difference between a Darwinist and a Neo Darwinist?

Why are the fossil records held in such high esteem when relationships between species are determined not only by similarities in bone structure but also blood type and DNA amongst other things? Is there any evidence in the fossil records that show the blood type and DNA of fossilized creatures? If not then how can evolutionists be absolutely positive that there is a link for instance between the various horse like creatures (fossils and bones collected by Cope and Marsh) if there is no further proof at the cellular level that can corroborate it when no cells have ever been fossilised?

Why did Darwin indicate in The decent of Man his belief that the Negro races where more closely related to the apes than white people? And why did he say: “at some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world?” Are there any in here that concur with this belief? If so why?

In you opinion did Darwin do as much to damage Science as he tried to do to Religion?

Thoughts please?

In answer to everybody who has posted their responses so far. I am really sorry for not getting back to you earlier. A friend of mine died yesterday and this is the first time I've been able to get access to a PC since I got the news.

To all the people who have contributed to this thread with lengthy replies let me tell you that I have read them all and I am the wiser for them and sorry for not replying individually, but Scofflaw, Robin, Wick, Sdep and all the other contributors thank you very much I really appreciate the replies.

I had got erroneous preconceived ideas on all this before I started but I wasn't trolling when I started the thread. I just wanted some opinions to the questions above. The only one to actually give me any answers to them was Wicknight. Most of the other posts are just responses to question others asked me in response to the original post which are very valid and the answers to which did show up my ignorance on the subject, so I am glad and do appreciate the effort put in by all in showing this to be true. I should know, being a long winded poster myself that it can take a lot out of at times.

Thanks to this thread I am now even more interested in this subject, even more so than when I started, which was moderately interested. I watched all the Ken Miller lecture on the Dover trial and found it very very informative and the question and answer session was an eye opener. I wasn't as aware as I am now (obviously) before watching it that things had gotten as bad as they have between both sides over the last 20 years or so and to be honest I think it is really sad. But I am glad I started this thread and I really do appreciate all you're responses. It is actually nice to see unity in Science at least. I wish religion could be as united. The world would be a much better place. Thank you one and all. I agree with all of you. If you’re going to argue a point make sure you know what you are arguing about first. I’ve learned my lesson.

In fairness to Richard Milton though, he really is not attacking science in his book, just some of the ideas that are still used in text books in classrooms and museums exhibits when modern scientists have long since turned from those early ideas. The basic tenet of his book is to clear out these things from school curricula not to abolish evolutionary theory completely. So an apology should also go to him for quite possibly misrepresenting his book by adding erroneous ideas of my own while presenting some of his. As you guys are really well informed on the subject I would really like to know your own opinions on his book if you every get read it.

Yours wounded and bleeding but learning SW

5uspect

I'm very sorry to hear about your friend.

Its nice to see someone take the step you have, I'm glad you have decided to take a fresh look at science, please do post again if you have questions.

Soul Winner

5uspect wrote: »

I'm very sorry to hear about your friend.

Its nice to see someone take the step you have, I'm glad you have decided to take a fresh look at science, please do post again if you have questions.

Thank you 5uspect and yes I surely will.

lookinforpicnic

I'm also sorry to hear about your friend, and apologetic about my own response...as I thought you had abandoned the thread.

I'm very impressed with your honesty by the way, and glad to hear your even more interested in evolution, as it is a wonderful subject and I found my own learning of the subject a most rewarding experience. If I was recommending a book it would have to be Dennett's 'Darwins Dangerous Idea' (I just found that book the most illuminating for me), but a biology textbook is just as good, its just one simple idea really (i.e. natural selection) and once your are acquainted with it you can make your own mind up.

Joe1919

This 'natural selection' idea is really floating around for a long time and can be a least traced back to Anaximander (600 BC) and is mentioned in Aristotle's Physics (198b10-199a30). It's interesting to see how little progress science has really made in some respects. Indeed Epicurus,(200BC) in his arguments on free-will argues about "the swerve of the atom" and this was 2000 years before Einstein and the possibility of random atomic forces undermining the possibility of determination.
There are things we simply don't understand. For example, we are aware of gravity and that it works but we don't quite understand what causes the attractive force between objects, and the field of attraction. We just have laws that it happens. Most atheists believe in the real existence of time (rather than conceptual) but this can be argued to be a fallacy. We have, to some extent learned how to use science without having a full understanding of science. This is nowhere more obvious than in the drugs industry.

To some extent, we need to explore the 'why' questions as well as the 'how' questions and if atheism is to become a serious 'thought system', atheism needs to get back to exploring life and searching for meaning and happiness.
To some extent, if you think about it, its understandable why religious fundamentalism may be on the increase again.

lookinforpicnic

Joe1919 wrote: »

if atheism is to become a serious 'thought system', atheism needs to get back to exploring life and searching for meaning and happiness.

What are you on about..? Atheists simply don't believe in a little fairy tale that we were told as kids, thats it.. "serious though system"

Fanny Cradock

Clearly it is something considerably more than not believing in God.

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Clearly it is something considerably more than not believing in God.

I'd be interested in what more you think there is to it - perhaps another thread?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Joe1919

"Clearly it is something considerably more than not believing in God."
Of course people are perfectly entitled to just stop thinking about God and get on with things. But if a person want to defend atheism against theism, well that is a different matter. Theism has been generally speaking part of culture and society for a long time. Society evolved in a mutual symboisis with religion and there may have been some survival advantage to religion. People do have concerns about scraping religion and many people believe in belief (although they may be scepethical about religion itself).

Dades

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Clearly it is something considerably more than not believing in God.

If that is clear to you it's clear to me you don't understand what the term atheist means.

Just because some posters here may have share the same opinions about relevant issues does not mean those opinions come under the term atheism. If every atheist here liked dogs and hated cats it still wouldn't make it a criteria for being one.

But I'd be interested to hear what you mean.

daveyjoe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Clearly it is something considerably more than not believing in God.

Maybe I'm wrong but I took that as sarcasm.