Evidence for Evolution - Final video and new website design

PR
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:11 am

Re: Evidence for Evolution - Final video and new website des

Post by PR » Thu Nov 05, 2015 8:36 am

The statement below was issued back in 2001 in response to a PBS series on evolution. Why do all these highly educated people essentially disagree with Jon?

One glaring problem with your talking points is that you fail to point out the huge distinction between macro evolution and micro evolution. You indiscriminately mix the two and pretend that they both apply equally to your hypothesis. For example, your eagle example is fraught with problems between each step you listed.

In your theory, 100s of millions of incredibly diverse life forms would have to be "evolving" more or less side by side at the same time, each one requiring, Lord only knows, tens of thousands of "transitional steps." How likely is that? Why doesn't the fossil record support it? But that's what you seem to espouse. Do you not see how nonsensical it sounds to so many intelligent people? The creation story better fits the evidence and better explains our observable universe than yours.

So why don't you come up with a better theory Jon?

The objections by the naturalist only crowd to a supernatural explanation makes no sense if you're truly in search of the truth. Are you?

Phil

A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U., Professor, Human Nutrition, Ohio State University • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.

User avatar
morbo3000
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 9:05 pm
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: Evidence for Evolution - Final video and new website des

Post by morbo3000 » Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:16 pm

This 4 minute video does more to illustrate the disparity between scientists and science deniers than Jon or I ever could.

It is specifically about climate change, but could be similarly applied to anti-vaxers, and creationists. They typically assert their opinions as the other side of a two-sided coin. But the overwhelming evidence is in favor of evolution, vaccinations and man-made contributions to climate change, regardless of whether a list of scientists disagree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

Also, in response to creationist lists of scientists, the NCSE launched Project Steve. This lists the number of "Steves" who agree with this statement.
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
Since the number of Steve's is only about 1% of the population, it demonstrates the disparity between the creationist lists.

Current # of Steves = 1,380.

You can do the math about how many scientists support evolution when including the other letters of the alphabet.

Source: http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve
When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen

PR
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:11 am

Re: Evidence for Evolution - Final video and new website des

Post by PR » Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:20 pm

Are you talking about macro or micro evolution? Big difference.

Phil

User avatar
morbo3000
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 9:05 pm
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: Evidence for Evolution - Final video and new website des

Post by morbo3000 » Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:24 pm

Macro.

The quote and links answer the question. And the John Oliver video illustrates the disparity in scientific opinions. It's short. As is the NCSE link.
When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen

User avatar
jonperry
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:00 pm
Location: Corvallis Oregon
Contact:

Re: Evidence for Evolution - Final video and new website des

Post by jonperry » Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:10 pm

Haha, Project Steve is great. Thanks for reminding me of that morbo3000.
PR wrote:100s of millions of incredibly diverse life forms would have to be "evolving" more or less side by side at the same time
Yep, speciation happens in a pattern of exponential growth. Here's a tree of life you can explore: http://itol.embl.de/

PR
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:11 am

Re: Evidence for Evolution - Final video and new website des

Post by PR » Thu Nov 05, 2015 6:04 pm

Did you notice how the list of scientists I posted have their titles and institutions nicely listed next to their names? Not too shabby of a group of skeptics if I do say so.

I'm sorry, but I cannot believe that all the millions of complex and diverse life forms, animal, plant, etc. came to be through macro evolution. There's just too many millions and millions of transitional steps which would have had to occur with all these life forms for this to be viable.

And the best objective evidence, the fossil record, doesn't really support this. There would have to be evidence for literally millions of transitional life forms, which simply aren't there.

"But the overwhelming evidence is in favor of evolution" Oh yeah? Says who? You're welcome to believe whatever you like, but I and many others have looked at the evidence for macro evolution and find it very weak. I would have to say that the overwhelming evidence is in favor of creation by a designer/creator. Not the Rube Goldberg like system that goes by the name of evolution.

Maybe you can help me understand the antisupernatural bias that so many seem to hold. Is it because most of the people controlling the conversation aren't religious? I can't understand it, if you're honestly seeking the truth why not consider all the possibilities?

I didn't get your name...

Phil

Here's some more info on evolution and the fossil record:

"The fossil record is one of the most common evidences given for evolution. It is named as such in the National Curriculum for Key Stage 4 Science and so features in most syllabuses and textbooks at this level and above.

But there are several facts about the fossil record which do not fit well with Darwin’s theory of evolution – facts which evolutionary biologists need to explain away rather than use as evidence for their theory. Charles Darwin was very aware of this and devoted a whole chapter of The Origin of Species to the subject.

The key problem is this: Darwin’s theory relies on minute changes in organisms which slowly accumulate, gradually changing the organism until it eventually becomes a new species. If this is correct, then the fossil record should contain many fossils with forms intermediate between different species. This is not what the fossil record shows. As Darwin put it:

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (The Origin of Species)

How did Darwin overcome this “obvious and serious objection”? He claimed that the gaps were due to “the extreme imperfection of the geological record” – the fossil record does not in fact give a very good record of the past. One reason for this at the time was the still very limited knowledge of the global fossil record. Darwin expected more intermediate forms to be found as research continued.

But when, 140 years later, Prof. Steve Jones of University College London published an updated version of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1999, the fossil record still posed the same problem.

The fossil record - in defiance of Darwin's whole idea of gradual change - often makes great leaps from one form to the next. Far from the display of intermediates to be expected from slow advance through natural selection many species appear without warning, persist in fixed form and disappear, leaving no descendants. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution.” (Almost Like a Whale, p. 252)"

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/i ... ecord.html

dizerner

Re: Evidence for Evolution - Final video and new website des

Post by dizerner » Thu Nov 05, 2015 10:04 pm

How can you expect a scientific materialist/philosophic naturalist to deny the one and only theory they have just due to some gaps and difficulties? I do wish they would emphasize and explain the difficulties more, but they probably would if they didn't feel religious people took them too far. That's why I kind of admire the scientists that are willing to take ridicule just to say "hey, these things look pretty difficult to explain." I would never expect, though, science to throw in supernaturalism to explain something they haven't figured out yet (and that doesn't speak to the truth of it or not; it's simply a different question altogether and science only deals with naturalism).

User avatar
jonperry
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:00 pm
Location: Corvallis Oregon
Contact:

Re: Evidence for Evolution - Final video and new website des

Post by jonperry » Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:02 am

PR,

Your misconceptions about the fossil record and about how science works are both very common. Once we are finished with our current set of animations on genetics, we actually have plans to produce a series explaining what science is, as well as the differences between facts, theories, laws, and hypotheses. I think it will be a good set of animations for someone like you.

I'm not sure if we'll get to it for a while (I'd like to do a series on speciation first) but a series of videos on fossils would also be good for the public. One on the fossilization process, another on how fossils are dated, and finally one on transitional fossils.

User avatar
psimmond
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Sharpsburg, GA
Contact:

Re: Evidence for Evolution - Final video and new website des

Post by psimmond » Sat Mar 26, 2016 10:53 am

Hi Jon,
I enjoyed your video on whales.
I'm an English guy and math and science are my weakest areas. So I've never tried too hard to understand the theory of evolution. But I do plan to check out more of your stuff.
If in the future I feel the theory of evolution provides the best explanation for what is, I see no reason I couldn't accept theistic evolution. (I'm not sure if you believe there is a deity behind creation, but I can't see any way I could ever account for the existence of matter and life without there being an intelligent creator.)
I also appreciate the mature and dignified way you've interacted on this forum and the fact that you intentionally chose this audience because you knew it would be a tough audience. (I suspect you might also see Christians as the most woefully ignorant ;) .)

Edit:
I just watched the origin of life video and enjoyed that as well. Of course my first question was, So where did the chemicals come from and the energy that acted upon them? If you exclude a supernatural creator, as many scientists do, this seems like it would be impossible to answer or even attempt to answer.
Let me boldly state the obvious. If you are not sure whether you heard directly from God, you didn’t.
~Garry Friesen

User avatar
jonperry
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:00 pm
Location: Corvallis Oregon
Contact:

Re: Evidence for Evolution - Final video and new website des

Post by jonperry » Tue May 03, 2016 6:29 pm

Psimmond,
So where did the chemicals come from and the energy that acted upon them? If you exclude a supernatural creator, as many scientists do, this seems like it would be impossible to answer or even attempt to answer.
The chemicals came from atoms interacting to form molecules. According to our best understanding of physics, the atoms heavier than hydrogen were made by hydrogen atoms fused together inside of stars and so on. If you ask why or how enough times, you eventually find the edge of current understanding. If you want to put God at the end of our understanding you can. This is called a God-of-the-gaps hypothesis. Whenever their is a gap in our understanding, some people want to fill that gap with God as an explanation. The problem with the God-of-the-gaps hypothesis is that it halts progress and that when someone else finds a natural explanation for the phenomenon in question, God has to retreat to fill some other gap.

Science is the act of collecting and documenting observable facts, and an ongoing discussion about how those facts can be best linked together.

Science will accept God as soon as their is direct observable evidence of God (though I'm sure many scientists will drag their feet a bit ;) ). Until then, scientists will continue to assume that any gaps or limits to our current understanding are simply that: gaps and limits to our current understanding. This assumption allows us to press forward in discovery.

Post Reply

Return to “Creation/Evolution”