What if the Theory of Evolution is Right? (Part I)

Another good point rarewinner. I have been on this site for weeks. Here is the pattern: If you cast a reasonable doubt on a premise they hold dear you will be ignored, usually on the grounds that you are poorly educated. If you try to obtain agreement on what constitutes proof they will evade on the grounds that all experts agree with them. Never mind that there are experts that disagree them. They feel that the evidence is "overwhelming". Never mind that some of us are underwhelmed. They are true believers and have pretty much eliminated doubt from their minds even though evolutionary textbooks are full of phrases such as "this is poorly understood" or "evidence for this remains to be found".

So, I enjoy the fact that we sometimes go a little adrift. mindwalker's comment on the marine in a philosophy course is a good example. There we have a professor basing an argument on a false premise and trying to induce his class to believe he has a point. The premise being: if there is a god he will respond to my demands for proof. When all He (God) would need to do is sit back and let the marine who paid good money for the lesson, take him out.

Knowledgeable people will be aware that uncertainties are generally in the details, and direct contradictions aren't found. This is what you expect from reality, so not to be complained about.

These stories never seem to involve pimply faced post adolescent suburban Caucasian youth who make up the majority of the post-secondary student populations. 

It's a BS story as it clearly is seeking to gain traction by engendering the services of a fictional combat veteran, marine, and female.  People may tend to be less inclined to say the story teller is full of it for fear of appearing ungrateful to veterans and misogynistic against females in traditional male roles. 

Rah Rah Rah God and the Marines.  As credible as making  Little Red Riding Hood a Navy Seal that round house kicks god into the Wolf.  Silly if not underhanded.

They use stories like that in an attempt to convince themselves. I agree though, can you imagine these people if they had guns and power! 

I don't need to imagine.  That reality is only a day's drive away.

Back to my theory about those who lack a sense of ironic humor. I don't think anyone is trying convince anyone of anything. They are just looking for a chuckle.

Other badly thought out aspects of the story are that this supposed intervention by a supernatural being leaves tens of thousands of troops dead by friendly fire, IEDs, snipers and many things (with no evidence religion has a relationship to risk, incidentally). The word fallible comes to mind.

Plus there is the clear implication that this being is incapable of intervening (albeit in an indetectible way) in a warzone at the same time as in a lecture theatre. Another fascinating advance in dogma.

So, one science denialist makes a blunder that has been corrected by people who possess any understanding of evolution and and has continued to be made ever since, then science denialist number two thinks this is a "good point"!

Let me try to do the impossible and clarify some simple science to those who are completely impervious to it.

There is not just one niche in the living world. If you don't know what "niche" is, you need to find out in order to discuss how the living world works. But let's keep it simple for illustration.

Suppose there were two niches: one is living in trees, eating fruit, and another is living on the plains, eating an omniverous diet. Suppose primates originally only live in the forest, but some living on the edge of the forest venture out occasionally and supplement their diet: note that because they live on the edge of the forest there is more pressure for them to do this, as they have less access to food in the forest.

Any mutations that assist them in doing this (eg those that make it easy to walk) might be advantageous to them, because there is less competition for the food on the plain. These adaptations make them more inclined to look for food outside of the forest and a feedback mechanism increases divergence. Meanwhile their cousins are happily living in the forest, especially those deep in the middle, where they don't even have the opportunity to use the plain as a food source.

And that makes the point clear.

So, if I was an optimistic person, I'd say two people won't make that blunder again. But I am a realist...

So God made man walking upright so He could look them in the face when he was talking to them. Now people can walk upright and just be full of hubris, because they don't have to look God in the face. ( Ralph, quit stealing my sheep)!

Meh...

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

Your bs, I suppose.

First.  reasonable doubt has little place in scientific discourse even though there is always reasonable doubt.  This is not a court room for pseudo-science to get a fair hearing.  This is also not an either or question.  Reasonable doubt in theory A does not make theory B correct.  If I doubt that A.  Neanderthals  invented fire by rubbing sticks together it does not mean that my assumption that B.  Prometheus gave fire to man must be true.  I just made up A so both A and B could be wrong.

Your problem however is is easy to solve.

1.  Find one of many text books that say "this is poorly understood" or "evidence for this remains to be found".  and cite it.

2.  Then, based on that or any other text explain why creation/intelligent design is a viable mechanism for where evidence is lacking.  It helps to be sure that evidence is actually lacking.  So if your text is more than ten years old you should dig a little deeper.

If you can't do that, then you haven't gone one inch towards proving anything.  In probably 4,000 posts no one has done this so there really is no discussion at all.

   Well, that's mighty decent of you to say. But the part "in probably 4,000 posts" is off a bit when yours is only #877. And how you pontificate that  you are "above it all" with your haughty assessment.

   If you had left out that arrogant last sentence, I would have thought your post to be rather OK.

In truth, gopher appears to be projecting the fact that has very little understanding of the science and very little knowledge of the evidence onto the "textbooks". (Has he actually opened one?)

To illustrate this, let's look at the first 4 four occurrences of the word "evidence" in the standard text "Biochemistry":

"Remarkably, there is convincing fossil evidence that organisms morphologically (and very probably biochemically) resembling certain modern bacteria were in existence 3.5 billion years ago."

"Is there any evidence that evolution can take place at the molecular level? In 1967, Sol Spiegelman showed that replicating molecules could evolve new forms in an experiment that allowed him to observe molecular evolution in the test tube."

"The properties of the ribonucleotide reductases vary substantially from species to species, but evidence suggests that they have a common mechanism of action and appear to have evolved from a common primordial enzyme."

"Most polypeptide chains devoid of cross-links assume a random-coil conformation in 8 M urea or 6 M guanidinium chloride, as evidenced by physical properties such as viscosity and optical activity."

You'll see there's a consistent focus on the implications of what is known (but not to science-denialists). I am sure the other occurrences are mostly of the same nature.

   Seems to me that what you've just said, Elroch, and what MindWalk and TheRealBobbyFischerGM have said is that if "A" isn't entirely proven that doesn't mean, therefore, "B" is correct.

   I've seen that Marine punching a teacher in the face as proof of God schtick...many times over the years. This is another example that "B" must be right without any merit. People of faith ("sheep" as e99 calls them..."pigeons" would also be apt) tend to be simple-minded in what they believe.

   Saying this, I've met a few teachers and professors who could have used a good, old-fashioned, roundhouse to the kisser. And, I am a military veteran who could have administered same...but we freethinkers tend to be overly kindly in such situations.

Moreover, pawnwhacker, if A is not contradicted by any of the evidence and both explains and predicts many characteristics of the evidence, anyone would be a fool to prefer a hypothesis B that fails to do anything like as well.

I notice Spikes thread seems to have stalled.