LoL! EvoTards are the people who accept blind watchmaker evolution. You obviously read only what you wanted to read.
There isn’t a scientific theory of evolution
That is incorrect. A change in allele frequency over time is the scientific definition of evolution
What point?
Then, Darwin certainly knew nothing about evolution at all. He knew nothing about alleles or genes. The Origin of the Species has absolutely nothing to do with evolution! Amazing. So tell me, when did we discover evolution?
(irony alert to the confused)
And good news, there also is a scientific theory of evolution. It is powerful and predictive. Unfortunately a forum on the internet isn’t a place to give a proper education on this. If you are interested, maybe your local university could help?
That’s precisely the issue here, IDers oppose the kind of evolution which scientists have established is fact. Evolutionary Creationists accept that evolution is a fact, but believe God set it up. Some ECs believe God has or continues to intervene at various points. But IDers don’t believe any of these things. That’s why you don’t call yourselves Evolutionary Creationists, and that’s why you keep trying to convince people evolution isn’t a fact. That’s why you say things like “Evolutionists are such a bunch of lowlife losers who love to entertain the rest of us”, and claim that evolution isn’t science.
You say this.
Yet there are many ID articles arguing against universal common descent. Casey Luskin says “Perhaps the inability to construct robust phylogenetic trees using molecular data stems from the fact that common descent is simply wrong”. Stephen Meyer says “Transitional life forms are theoretical postulations that make possible evolutionary accounts of present biological data”. Jonathon Wells says “speculations about common ancestry and the transmutation of species that look increasingly implausible with each new piece of evidence”.
I didn’t respond to it because I haven’t read it. What value is there in reading an essay by someone who writes things like “Evolutionists are such a bunch of lowlife losers who love to entertain the rest of us”, and who doesn’t understand the basic scientific facts involved?
Nonsense. You have a strange definition of “fact”.
It is an untestable claim. Why doesn’t everyone argue against it?
I bet I understand those facts better than you do. I bet I understand science better than you do. And the “evolutionists” I am referring to are the ones who accept Dawkins’ blind watchmaker thesis. So obviously you have reading comprehension issues and can only hurl false accusations. I see there are some other non-christians here.
When the modern synthesis came around. Darwin was ignorant of many aspects of biology. That is one reason his was not a scientific theory.
Then it is strange that no one can link to it. And I took several courses in biology. There aren’t any predictions borne from natural selection and drift, ie the proposed mechanisms of evolution.
Well I appreciate that you explain that. But you know that at BioLogos some of us call ourselves “theistic evolutionists,” so that is hard to appreciate right away. It sounds like you meant something else.
Going to my prior point, the rhetoric “sounds” anti-evolution. Even if you don’t mean us when you say “EvoTARD” it is not obvious you are not referring to us. It is not obvious you are not referring to my scientific colleagues that accept evolution but question the “blind watchmaker.”
Dawkins is not a good place to learn about evolution… His version of evolution is not scientific, but also includes strong metaphysical claims that are not scientific.
If that is your starting point, it will be very difficult to untangle your point of view. Good luck with that. The actual scientific theory is that we all descent from common ancestors.
I suppose, after decades of reading about this topic, and working as a scientist too, I have yet to come across all these experiments that support ID. Where are these secret experiments being conducted? Where are they published? Why is that all the biologists I work with are unaware of them?
Of course we can. Read this ID critique of Axe. In particular the links to Sandwalk explain exactly how this is a strawman.
http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/axe.html
Well, what do you expect when you are working from an undergrad education on a complicated field? That doesn’t give you even the basics.
It turns out there are predictions born out of things like natural selection and neutral drift. And it this is exactly what convinced people that these mechanisms of change (in particular drift) are so important. One high level primer (by an ID orbiting author) is here:
One of the most impressive predictions is that intron substitution rates should approximately equal synonymous mutation rates, if (1) most mutations are neutral and (2) we descend from common ancestors. There is no ID theory that makes this prediction, and it is extremely robust across the genome, and between a wide range of species. If not common descent, then what causes this pattern?
This just one example of course. There is much more here.
So apparently, Darwin had nothing to do with evolution. It wasn’t till Huxley in 1942 that evolution was introduced. Someone should have told Williams Jennings Bryan. What in the world were they arguing about at the Scope Trial? Evolution didn’t even exist yet! (irony alert again).
I could go on here. You use the term “theory” different than we do in science. But rather that pursue that, I have a better question…
Can you tell us a bit about yourself? Why are you so passionate about this issue? Why does it matter to you?
I’ve already agreed with you that ID is not intrinsically anti-evolution, and explain that to people here all the time. Setting that aside, what are you hoping to accomplish here?
That is the evolution that is being taught.
You do realize Axe has responded to your criticisms and those of Moran, right?
How christian of you.
A common design does. And Linne had his binomial nomenclature and nested hierarchy based on a common design.
I didn’t say nor imply that. I was talking about the definition of evolution. Look just because you tried to redefine evolution, which leaves out Lenski’s long term evolutionary experiment, antibiotic resistance, etc, and were caught, doesn’t give you the right to start hurling nonsense.
I am looking to see what you guys say about ID and evolution.
Please explain how common design explains how Ks and Ki are equal? No one has ever done that before. Makes me wonder if you even know what I am talking about.
I was referring to the classes in biology you took (at an undergrad or high school level I suppose). That’s all.
Please explain how common descent can be tested scientifically. What makes a human a human and how did you determine that? IOW support your claim and then I will support mine. I need to see what type of evidence/ explanation you will accept.
Did you realize that the neutral theory has never been validated? It is a pot hoc “explanation” of what we observe ASSUMING universal common descent. No one has ever observed neutral mutations becoming fixed in a real population.
(Content removed by moderator)
@JoeG… it’s hard to keep all your gyrations listed and cataloged. So let me ask you this one question:
Do you support the science that shows the Earth to be 5 billion years old? If so, then I will retrace my steps and find my error in understanding you.
If you reject a 5 billion year Earth, then this is my proof that you hold an anti-science position… and that you apparently use ID as an eventual support for your position.
I have asked you to reference the science that the earth is 5 billion years old. I have already explained my position- twice. It isn’t my fault that you didn’t understand what I posted.
Your link doesn’t work for me. And talk origins isn’t a trustworthy site. Not only that you are also ignoring what I posted on the topic- that we have to know how the earh was formed before trying to determine its age
I can’t imagine a bigger waste of time, @JoeG.
You have already demonstrated a consistent lack of interest in scientific results … so why should anyone try to present science on how the Earth was formed?
You are now working red herrings TWO LEVELS DEEP.
Here you go.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/agescience2.htm
You mean it’s a site you don’t like.
Why?
In order for rad decay to give an accurate age of the earth the earth had to have been completely molten at one time in order to get rid of all crystals in the accretion debris. If not you are dating the crystals and not the earth, meaning the earth could be young but made up of old debris.
Now @JoeG is trying to say that when God created the Earth out of nothing … he first made “old debris” out of nothing THEN he made the Earth out of Old Debris.
I kid you not… this guy is always thinking !
When you have evidence that “the crystals” are being dated and not “the earth”, do let us know. We don’t need to know how the earth was formed before we try to determine its age. We can measure directly the age of the components of the earth, and measure directly the date at which the earth passed through various forms, including its molten form.
I never said anything about God. Your desperation is showing
I just told you
Umm that just measures the age of the crystals. It appears that you don’t understand what I posted.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.