Evolution and Theory of Evolution Evidence

tosca1 said:

Thus I asked csbrown

If evolution is supposed to be "progression," somehow....there's something about it that knows how to evolve "progressively."
Why it has to emit something that would kill itself and yet give rise to other life forms suggest of DESIGN! It did what it was supposed to have done!

.

Click to expand...

It didn't do it on purpose...the waste product of the bacterium or organisms happen to multiply in the atmosphere. All organisms have a waste product....eventually that waste will accumulate and change the environment. When the environment changes... so do the organisms to survive.

It didn't emit something that would kill itself...it was completely fine for hundred of thousands of years until the waste produce accululated.... organisms only think in the present.

Moot said:

James Tour said he believes in microevolution but not macroevolution. But the only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is time and scale. It's like the difference between studying an individual breed of dog and the entire species of dogs. James Tour is right, he really doesn't know what he's talking about. I guess that's why he's on your side, eh? lol
So, do you think God makes mistakes?

Click to expand...

First of all....why do you invoke God in this discussion? I try not to bring in religion when I'm discussing science - and yet it's being brought up by those who aren't religious. :lol:

That appeal to "religion card" suggests that it's hard to counter the argument, so the last resort is to use religion to try to discredit the argument. :lol:



So you say JTour doesn't know what he's talking about. Because of that, he's on my side? Eh?
If you read my quoted article, you'd see that, it's not only JTour who, you say, "doesn't know what he's talking about." National Academy members and Nobel Prize winners don't either.

So, just imagine how many of them are on my side.

If Academy members and Nobel Prize winners are on "my side," the interesting question is.....

......who's credible, that's on your side? :mrgreen:

Wanna find out?


Check his comment:

I do have scientific problems understanding macroevolution as it is usually presented. I simply can not accept it as unreservedly as many of my scientist colleagues do, although I sincerely respect them as scientists.

Some of them seem to have little trouble embracing many of evolution’s proposals based upon (or in spite of) archeological, mathematical, biochemical and astrophysical suggestions and evidence, and yet few are experts in all of those areas, or even just two of them.


WOW.


Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway.

When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?


James M Tour Group » Evolution/Creation


WOW.




EXTRAPOLATION - An extrapolation is kind of like an educated guess or a hypothesis. When you make an extrapolation, you take facts and observations about a present or known situation and use them to make a prediction about what might eventually happen.

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourcei...98ca498&gws_rd=ssl#q=extrapolation+definition


That was a diplomatic rebuke. :lol:



Some of them seem to have little trouble embracing many of evolution’s proposals based upon (or in spite of) archeological, mathematical, biochemical and astrophysical suggestions and evidence,

and yet few are experts in all of those areas, or even just two of them.


OUCH.

That was a slam.

celticwar17 said:

It didn't do it on purpose...the waste product of the bacterium or organisms happen to multiply in the atmosphere. All organisms have a waste product....eventually that waste will accumulate and change the environment. When the environment changes... so do the organisms to survive.

It didn't emit something that would kill itself...it was completely fine for hundred of thousands of years until the waste produce accululated.... organisms only think in the present.

Click to expand...

Who knows? If renown and Nobel Prize winning scientists don't understand macroevolution - surely, we don't.
Refer to my response to Moot above. #102.

Macroevolution is a false made-up pseudoscientific term.

Moot said:

Since evolution makes mistakes, do you think God makes mistakes, too?


The scientist that you quoted earlier, Professor James M. Tour said that he believes in evolution and doesn't know how to use science to prove ID...


James M. Tour: "I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label."

Click to expand...

Wow, thanks for that quote of JTour, Moot. I wonder if you read the rest of that article from where that quote came from. If not, you're in for a big shock!



JTour spilled the beans.


The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution.

Here is what some supporters of Darwinism have written regarding this point in respected journals, and it is apparent that they struggle with the same difficulty.

•Stern, David L. “Perspective: Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Problem of Variation,” Evolution 2000, 54, 1079-1091. A contribution from the University of Cambridge. “One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology remains largely unsolved; Historically, the neo-Darwinian synthesizers stressed the predominance of micromutations in evolution, whereas others noted the similarities between some dramatic mutations and evolutionary transitions to argue for macromutationism.”

•Simons, Andrew M. “The Continuity of Microevolution and Macroevolution,” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2002, 15, 688-701. A contribution from Carleton University.”A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution and macroevolution — whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution.”


So the debate between the validity of extending microevolutionary trends to macroevolutionary projections is indeed “persistent� in evolutionary biology.


Some are disconcerted or even angered that I signed a statement back in 2001 along with over 700 other scientists:
“We are 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.”�

Do not the texts written by the two authors above underscore what I signed, namely, “Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged”�? And these “oldest problems in evolutionary biology”� lead me and many others to our being “skeptical.”�


It is not a matter of politics. I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened.
Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me?


Furthermore, when I, a non-conformist, ask proponents for clarification, they get flustered in public and confessional in private wherein they sheepishly confess that they really don’t understand either.

Well, that is all I am saying: I do not understand. But I am saying it publicly as opposed to privately. Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me. Lunch will be my treat.
Until then, I will maintain that no chemist understands, hence we are collectively bewildered.

And I have not even addressed origin of first life issues.

For me, that is even more scientifically mysterious than evolution. Darwin never addressed origin of life, and I can see why he did not; he was far too smart for that.

Present day scientists that expose their thoughts on this become ever so timid when they talk with me privately. I simply can not understand the source of their confidence when addressing their positions publicly.

James M Tour Group » Evolution/Creation




He sunk the leaky evolution boat! :mrgreen:

Every post you make, you declare victory. If you really thought you'd already disproven evolution, you wouldn't keep posting.

Originally Posted by Moot View Post

Since evolution makes mistakes, do you think God makes mistakes, too?


The scientist that you quoted earlier, Professor James M. Tour said that he believes in evolution and doesn't know how to use science to prove ID...


James M. Tour: "I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label."

Click to expand...

He may have said that....but the tone of his message about ID is not harsh at all, compared to his opinion of his colleagues (who are proponents of macroevolution).


Therefore, God seems to have set nature as a clue, not a solution, to keep us yearning for him.


James M Tour Group » Evolution/Creation

James Tour exposed the politics in science - how scientists are coerced to agree to macroevolution.
That supports the past corruption charges of bias against peer-reviews.



Specifically, in the past, I wrote that my standing as a scientist was “based primarily upon my scholarly peer-reviewed publications.”� I no longer believe that, however.

In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this.

I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys. Rice University, from the administration, has always been gracious and open. The president of Rice University, David Leebron, has even written to the faculty that a,

“core value of our university is free and open inquiry. We encourage robust debate on the difficult issues of the day, and we welcome people with many points of view to our campus to better understand those issues and the differences that can divide us. That can and does mean that we sometimes provide a forum for opinions that may be controversial — or even on occasion reprehensible — to many or a few. While we cannot and will not censor the expression of divergent opinions, we do expect those opinions be expressed with civility and with respect for other points of view.”


Hence, by my observation, the unfair treatment upon the skeptics of macroevolution has not come from the administration level.

But my recent advice to my graduate students has been direct and revealing: If you disagree with Darwinian Theory, keep it to yourselves if you value your careers, unless, of course, you’re one of those champions for proclamation; I know that that fire exists in some, so be ready for lead-ridden limbs.
But if the scientific community has taken these shots at senior faculty, it will not be comfortable for the young non-conformist. When the power-holders permit no contrary discussion, can a vibrant academy be maintained? Is there a University (unity in diversity)? For the United States, I pray that the scientific community and the National Academy in particular will investigate the disenfranchisement that is manifest upon some of their own, and thereby address the inequity.


Some have asked me what I think of the movie, “Expelled. No Intelligence Allowed.”� I saw a closed viewing of the movie in February 2008, two months before its public showing. It was difficult for me to watch because it struck so close to home, thus I am sure that my feelings were different than the other non-scientists in the theater.

That a subset of the scientific establishment is retarding the careers of Darwinian skeptics is true as far as I have witnessed personally.

If there are legitimate scientific skepticisms regarding the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution, those skeptics are sometimes stifled through unfair treatment regarding their career advancement; that is real although most scientists would say that such attacks on careers are nonexistent.

James M Tour Group » Evolution/Creation

tosca1 said:

Who knows? If renown and Nobel Prize winning scientists don't understand macroevolution - surely, we don't.
Refer to my response to Moot above. #102.

Click to expand...

I was stating the claim of what most scientist think... I feel like you were misrepresenting them.

celticwar17 said:

I was stating the claim of what most scientist think... I feel like you were misrepresenting them.

Click to expand...

How can I misrepresent "conjectures?" that can't be described as scientific at all?


If there's anyone who's doing some misrepresenting, that would be the scientists whom JTour says are practicing, GROSS EXTRAPOLATIONS.

when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway.

http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topi...-the-christian-creationist-and-his-“science”/

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution



This commentary was given by JTour in the book of Lee Strobel, "A Case For Christ."


"I build molecules for a living, I can't begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith.

If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God."[39]


Is it any wonder why a lot of atheist-scientists ended up finding God, and converting to Christianity?




What's the credentials of this world-famous chemist, James Tour?


Tour was named among "The 50 most Influential Scientists in the World Today" by TheBestSchools.org in 2014.

Tour was named "Scientist of the Year" by R&D Magazine in 2013.

Tour won the ACS Nano Lectureship Award from the American Chemical Society in 2012.

Tour was ranked one of the top 10 chemists in the world over the past decade by Thomson Reuters in 2009.
That year, he was also made a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.


Other notable awards won by Tour include the 2008 Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology, the NASA Space Act Award in 2008 for his development of carbon nanotube reinforced elastomers, the Arthur C. Cope Scholar Award from the American Chemical Society (ACS) for his achievements in organic chemistry in 2007, the Small Times magazine's Innovator of the Year Award in 2006, the Southern Chemist of the Year Award from ACS in 2005, the Honda Innovation Award for Nanocars in 2005, the NSF Presidential Young Investigator Award in 1990, and the Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Award in 1989.

In 2005, Tour's journal article "Directional Control in Thermally Driven Single-Molecule Nanocars" was ranked the Most Accessed Journal Article by the American Chemical Society.[42] Tour has twice won the George R. Brown Award for Superior Teaching at Rice University in 2007 and 2012.

James Tour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

csbrown28 said:

So it's great to create web site that panders to creationists...Tell me, have they actually done any "research"? Have they submitted anything for peer review? I suspect the only research they've done is on Google.

Click to expand...

Please, let's stick to the message. FYI, sites that you've given as sources like Rationalwiki wouldn't be considered credible at all, and the argument(s) dismissed simply on the basis that it was given by Rationalwiki....... that is, if I go along with you and start dismissing the argument on the basis of which site it is on.


I gave it the benefit of the doubt, and looked up one of the listed alleged transistional fossils - and behold, it's merely conjectures and gross extrapolations.

We "THINK" does not mean, it is.
ESPECIALLY so, after that damning expose' by a leading scientist, James Tour.

RationalWiki is a wiki created in response to Conservapedia.

Click to expand...

RationalWiki - Metapedia


The same way that there are TRUEOrigin and TALKOrigin.

Deal with the argument. If you've got something to counter the argument with, it's only logical that you bring that up, instead of poking at a source. Otherwise, it shows that you've got none.

tosca1 said:

Please, let's stick to the message. FYI, sites that you've given as sources like Rationalwiki wouldn't be considered credible at all.

Click to expand...

Rational Wiki does a good job of pulling together evidence gathered by credible scientists.

tosca1 said:

and the argument(s) dismissed simply on the basis that it was given by Rationalwiki....... that is, if I go along with you and start dismissing the argument on the basis of which site it is on.

Click to expand...

Wrong, I didn't dismiss it based on the site, I dismissed it based on the sites lack of real research.

tosca1 said:

I gave it the benefit of the doubt, and looked up one of the listed alleged transitional fossils - and behold, it's merely conjectures and gross extrapolations.

Click to expand...

All of this according to a site you googled that, as I said hasn't done any real research (nor does it cite from other research sources), yet the sites you quote from like to keep the appearance that they do, in fact do research. Rational Wiki does cite from well known research from people in qualified fields.... See how you're rational falls apart here?

tosca1 said:

We "THINK" does not mean, it is.
ESPECIALLY so, after that damning expose' by a leading scientist, James Tour.

Click to expand...

So I have no idea who this person you speak of is, but let me just give you the benefit of the doubt and agree with any accusation you make of this person Mr. Tour. If you want to discredit science, you don't find one scientist and expose him for whatever you think it is that he has done. Perhaps the people that you claim to know (AIG, Creation Science ect) could just do a little research rather than finding perceived flaws in other peoples work. These sites appeal to peoples intuition, sort of like the idea that complex life as we know it has arisen in the last billion or so years out of the 3.5 billion that life has been on this planet. You think that is suspicious because for the first two thirds there was only simple life. That is appealing to intuition, none of the sites you reference have actually shown how this isn't possible, they just point it out appealing to intuition. It's been proven over and over again how intuition is a poor path to truth.

tosca1 said:

RationalWiki - Metapedia

The same way that there are TRUEOrigin and TALKOrigin.

Deal with the argument. If you've got something to counter the argument with, it's only logical that you bring that up, instead of poking at a source. Otherwise, it shows that you've got none.

Click to expand...

The source is corrupt. You have poked at individuals in order to try to discredit a group, I have shown how you're group is dishonest and doesn't do any work to back up their claims.

tosca1 said:

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution



This commentary was given by JTour in the book of Lee Strobel, "A Case For Christ."


"I build molecules for a living, I can't begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith.

If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God."[39]


Is it any wonder why a lot of atheist-scientists ended up finding God, and converting to Christianity?




What's the credentials of this world-famous chemist, James Tour?


Tour was named among "The 50 most Influential Scientists in the World Today" by TheBestSchools.org in 2014.

Tour was named "Scientist of the Year" by R&D Magazine in 2013.

Tour won the ACS Nano Lectureship Award from the American Chemical Society in 2012.

Tour was ranked one of the top 10 chemists in the world over the past decade by Thomson Reuters in 2009.
That year, he was also made a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.


Other notable awards won by Tour include the 2008 Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology, the NASA Space Act Award in 2008 for his development of carbon nanotube reinforced elastomers, the Arthur C. Cope Scholar Award from the American Chemical Society (ACS) for his achievements in organic chemistry in 2007, the Small Times magazine's Innovator of the Year Award in 2006, the Southern Chemist of the Year Award from ACS in 2005, the Honda Innovation Award for Nanocars in 2005, the NSF Presidential Young Investigator Award in 1990, and the Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Award in 1989.

In 2005, Tour's journal article "Directional Control in Thermally Driven Single-Molecule Nanocars" was ranked the Most Accessed Journal Article by the American Chemical Society.[42] Tour has twice won the George R. Brown Award for Superior Teaching at Rice University in 2007 and 2012.

James Tour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

So I glossed over this before my last reply.


The guy you are quoting isn't a hard core creationist, though he is a skeptic (as all scientists should be). He makes no claims about evolution and freely admits there is much he doesn't know....

Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please don’t ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek. You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context.
I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label.

Click to expand...

James M Tour Group » Evolution/Creation

csbrown28 said:

Rational Wiki does a good job of pulling together evidence gathered by credible scientists.
Wrong, I didn't dismiss it based on the site, I dismissed it based on the sites lack of real research.
All of this according to a site you googled that, as I said hasn't done any real research (nor does it cite from other research sources), yet the sites you quote from like to keep the appearance that they do, in fact do research. Rational Wiki does cite from well known research from people in qualified fields.... See how you're rational falls apart here?

Click to expand...

Here is what you saud:

Now, what about transitional fossils?

Your video shows a pathetic scientist who never should have graduated as he clearly didn't understand the subject he was supposed to be teaching, but just for grins, here are a list of "transitional fossils" as you understand them (since technically, all fossils are in transition).

Click to expand...

If all fossils are transitional - then, what's the big deal about the Purgatorious? You and Rational wiki are simply stating, conjectures.


THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE!


Here's according to the PNAS (Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences):


Significance

Purgatorius has been considered a plausible ancestor for primates since it was discovered, but this fossil mammal has been known only from teeth and jaw fragments.


The dentition of Purgatorius is more primitive than those of all known living and fossil primates, leading some researchers to suggest that it lies near the ancestry of all other primates; however, others have questioned its affinities to primates or even to placental mammals.

Oldest known euarchontan tarsals and affinities of Paleocene Purgatorius to Primates




My source's message is in-line with the PNAS statement, and that proved its credibility.

And if some scientists are jumping the gun and declaring it an ancestor of primates based only on those few items - James Tour is absolutely right in his scathing commentary about some of his colleagues.

Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway.

csbrown28 said:

So I glossed over this before my last reply.


The guy you are quoting isn't a hard core creationist, though he is a skeptic (as all scientists should be). He makes no claims about evolution and freely admits there is much he doesn't know....



James M Tour Group » Evolution/Creation

Click to expand...

We're not talking about creationists here! :lol:

The topic is about macroevolution, as evolutionists try to pass for a fact! Debunked.

tosca1 said:

Here is what you saud:




If all fossils are transitional - then, what's the big deal about the Purgatorious? You and Rational wiki are simply stating, conjectures.


THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE!


Here's according to the PNAS (Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences):


Significance

Purgatorius has been considered a plausible ancestor for primates since it was discovered, but this fossil mammal has been known only from teeth and jaw fragments.


The dentition of Purgatorius is more primitive than those of all known living and fossil primates, leading some researchers to suggest that it lies near the ancestry of all other primates; however, others have questioned its affinities to primates or even to placental mammals.

Oldest known euarchontan tarsals and affinities of Paleocene Purgatorius to Primates




My source's message is in-line with the PNAS statement, and that proved its credibility.

And if some scientists are jumping the gun and declaring it an ancestor of primates based only on those few items - James Tour is absolutely right in his scathing commentary about some of his colleagues.

Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway.

Click to expand...

If just one is a transitional fossil you're wong.

Oh look, here....here is a good example of a transitional fossil...

Quick, go check AIG or "creation science" and cut and paste their un-researched claims...

csbrown28 said:

If just one is a transitional fossil you're wong.

Oh look, here....here is a good example of a transitional fossil...

Quick, go check AIG or "creation science" and cut and paste their un-researched claims...

Click to expand...

Well csbrown, I don't want to keep debating science based on personal opinion.


The statement from the PNAS had FACTUALLY confirmed what my source and James Tour had been saying. It countered yours, and Rational Wiki's.

That proves my point.

tosca1 said:

Well csbrown, I don't want to keep debating science based on personal opinion.


The statement from the PNAS had FACTUALLY confirmed what my source and James Tour had been saying. It countered yours, and Rational Wiki's.

That proves my point.

Click to expand...

That is called deflection...