You must keep the faith that complex life arose from a puddle of inorganic slop.
From slop came purposelessness. And from purposelessness, understanding that the entire universe also has no purpose

It's the logical conclusion.

Flann 5 wrote:professor James Tour's request for a scientific explanation for macro-evolution.

I have done the courtesy of looking for the answer to this question, and as expected, this reflects extremely badly on the Discovery Institute and its friends.

A google search turned up the expected creationist dross, but also had this gem, which is well worth reading for those who want a fair and sympathetic understanding of the issues here.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com.au/2014/03 ... stand.html

It explains that Professor Tour's argument against macroevolution is based on his faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately that is an extremely weak and tendentious hook upon which to hang such a brazenly ignorant denial of science.

The idea that there are "problems" with macroevolution is a story manufactured by the Creationist community. You won't find that in biology textbooks, Flann. This is classic wedge strategy devised by the Discovery Institute to look for "problems" with evolution to give Creationists a wedge for beliefs that are incompatible with science.

I was reading a news story about some Nile Crocodiles recently discovered in the Everglades and was wondering if the Nile Croc could interbreed with the native American Alligator. As it turns out, they can't interbreed because they are genetically too far apart. Alligators and crocodiles are the same reptile subgroup. They have a common ancestor but became geographically separated about 70 million years ago and are now separate species. This is clear evidence of speciation, and there are countless examples of it in nature. This is the very definition of macroevolution: when a species splits into two, or changes into another species over a given time.

Crocodiles and alligators are obviously related and genetic analysis confirms that they are genetically very similar. A similar analysis shows how closely humans are related to bonobos and apes. Indeed, humans are a third species of chimpanzee if you go by the same taxonomy that we use to categorize all other species. It's only due to our beliefs that we are separate from animals that makes this designation as the third chimpanzee hard to accept.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/15/books ... -apes.html

Robert Tulip wrote:

Flann 5 wrote:professor James Tour's request for a scientific explanation for macro-evolution.

I have done the courtesy of looking for the answer to this question, and as expected, this reflects extremely badly on the Discovery Institute and its friends.

A google search turned up the expected creationist dross, but also had this gem, which is well worth reading for those who want a fair and sympathetic understanding of the issues here.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com.au/2014/03 ... stand.html

It explains that Professor Tour's argument against macroevolution is based on his faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately that is an extremely weak and tendentious hook upon which to hang such a brazenly ignorant denial of science.

Science "deniers"

That is such a Cult-like thing to say.

geo wrote:The idea that there are "problems" with macroevolution is a story manufactured by the Creationist community. You won't find that in biology textbooks, Flann. This is classic wedge strategy devised by the Discovery Institute to look for "problems" with evolution to give Creationists a wedge for beliefs that are incompatible with science.

There are problems with the neo-Darwinian theory Geo. Textbooks with peppered moths or varieties of finch beaks are not proofs for macro-evolution. Neither is speciation.
This particular version of the theory is moribund. Denis Noble and others looking for an extended synthesis flat out reject it whatever the current textbooks may say.
I'm not saying these critics reject evolution. And again Denton is not a creationist. In this talk Noble points out that mutations are not random. The very thing Loennig observed in relation to the induced mutations experiment with crops and plants.
Loennig is very highly qualified and these dismissals as their being part of the creationist community don't address their arguments at all.

Here's Noble's assessment of neo-Darwinism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeqEBrnai4s

There are problems with macro-evolution,some of which I've outlined already. and there are many more.

There are paleontologists who are honest enough to admit that the fossil record does not support gradualism but it's opposite. Neither do they try to make the excuse of it's incompleteness but accept that it is sufficiently complete to floor Darwin's theory.

They go with saltations as you know, but of course there is no evidence for this in the fossil record either. They give reasons for this but the stark fact remains that they simply don't have the evidence to support their "hopeful monsters" theory.

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/ori ... uties.html

I read through the list in the second link Flann. There is nothing there that hasn't been answered a hundred thousand times. It's all ignorance and fabrication. Where there are issues with macroevolution, they're a handful of pieces in a million piece puzzle. And you're claiming the picture can't yet be known. It's denialism.

Flann 5 wrote: There are problems with the neo-Darwinian theory Geo.

The terms "neo-Darwinism" or simply "Darwinism" are simply references to modern evolutionary theory, a synthesis of overlapping evidence from many scientific disciplines providing an account of evolution which is widely accepted today. Evolutionary theory didn't start with Charles Darwin, nor does it end with him. Creationists misuse the term "neo-Darwinism" because they don't understand that scientific theories must incorporate new evidence and new ideas. It's not a weakness or problem that the theory has grown and changed over time. Darwin couldn't have anticipated epigenetics or plasticity or many other fields within the study of evolution.

All of your points, which are mere Creationist wedges, imply that because we don't know exactly how everything works, this means there are problems with "neo-Darwinism." Creatonists are cherry-picking unknowns or areas that aren't perfectly understood (or in many cases, misrepresenting the facts) and implying that this shows flaws in the science. As Interbane said earlier, you expect evolutionary explanations to be static and absolute, but our understanding of the world is always provisional. If science didn't change and grow it would be dogma.

The only source for these alleged problems are your Creationist propaganda, which are focused not on the truth, but in maintaining Creationist myth. Since Liberty University was mentioned earlier, I will point to the description of the Center for Creation Studies. It's very telling.

Liberty University's Center for Creation Studies is a dynamic, teaching-based academic center. Our purpose is to research, promote, and communicate a robust young-Earth creationist view of Earth history. Beginning with sound Biblical interpretation, we seek to understand how science can inform us about God's magnificent creation.

The university's stated goal is to rationalize creationism. This is not pursuit of knowledge but in Christian apologetics. They are putting the cart before the horse. Your deep skepticism of evolution is understood, but it hardly matters what your personal beliefs are. It only shows that you are incapable of being objective about the science of evolution. It absolutely rubs you the wrong way.

Flann wrote:

They go with saltations as you know, but of course there is no evidence for this in the fossil record either. They give reasons for this but the stark fact remains that they simply don't have the evidence to support their "hopeful monsters" theory.

This is off topic a bit, but not by much as it pertains to "science denial" or more specifically "denialism" in general

It's interesting to note the hypocrisy of people like Robert, who freely accuse others of engaging in science denial, when in fact they are denialist themselves in other fields of knowledge when it best suits their personal ideologies.

Take for instance the wackiness of Astrotheology and Mytherism.

Here's one Wiki entry on what denialism entails. While you're reading it, think of all the denial that's spouted by Mythers like Robert:

(Bold emphases are mine)

..,(brother of Chris Hoofnagle) has described denialism as "the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none".[6] [7][a] It is a process that operates by employing one or more of the following five tactics in order to maintain the appearance of legitimate controversy:[15]

Conspiracy theories — Dismissing the data or observation by suggesting opponents are involved in "a conspiracy to suppress the truth".
Cherry picking — Selecting an anomalous critical paper supporting their idea, or using outdated, flawed, and discredited papers in order to make their opponents look as though they base their ideas on weak research.

False experts — Paying an expert in the field, or another field, to lend supporting evidence or credibility.

Moving the goalpost — Dismissing evidence presented in response to a specific claim by continually demanding some other (often unfulfillable) piece of evidence.

Other logical fallacies — Usually one or more of false analogy, appeal to consequences, straw man, or red herring.


Tara Smith of the University of Iowa also stated that moving goalposts, conspiracy theories, and cherry-picking evidence are general characteristics of denialist arguments, but went on to note that these groups spend the "majority of their efforts critiquing the mainstream theory" in an apparent belief that if they manage to discredit the mainstream view, their own "unproven ideas will fill the void".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism


Now anyone who's read some of the astrotheology myther nonsense that circulates around like bad air knows that a large part of Mytherism is asserting conspiracy theories, not to mention their regular cherry picking from various myths that have multiple versions attached to them so that their connecting the dots "scholarship" provides an illusion of academic research and consensus.

How many false experts do Mythers regularly pull out of their pockets?
Anyone familiar with Myther nonsense knows their "experts" are largely uncredentialed internet bloggers.

No evidence is enough for a myther. Evidence is asserted away.

Other fallacies permeate myther denialsim - (ie post hoc, non sequitur, composition)


Robert Tulip is a denier of a different hue.

Interbane wrote:I read through the list in the second link Flann. There is nothing there that hasn't been answered a hundred thousand times. It's all ignorance and fabrication. Where there are issues with macroevolution, they're a handful of pieces in a million piece puzzle. And you're claiming the picture can't yet be known. It's denialism.

The problem is Interbane that it's Gould,Stanley and many other paleontologists who were the "deniers" of gradualism whether you like it or not.
They did so on the basis of the evidence. They still held to evolution but had to come up with another theory to attempt to explain the evidence of their own eyes and research.

So what is the the explanation for alleged macro-evolution,gradualism or great leaps? Darwin realized that the fossil record was against his theory. So what did he do?, in effect "deny" the evidence in favour of his theory

The problem is Interbane that it's Gould,Stanley and many other paleontologists who were the "deniers" of gradualism whether you like it or not.

When a layman who could not possibly have a deeper (or as deep) understanding of the science as a academic like Gould, said layman resorts to Bandwagonism because it feels good to be on the side of the majority.
It's an emotionally motivated decision made by the layman and nothing more.