Willful Ignorance of Evolution?

[_beastie]

I think it's pretty clear dart is relying on anti-evolution/religionists websites. He is also being dodgie about that fact, and trying to present himself as someone who has studied legitimate** sources. What's also pretty clear, to anyone who is familiar with his posting style, is that he'd blast the frack* out of any Mormon who would do so in regards to the Book of Abraham.

*don't blame me, blame the BSG thread

**yes, I use that term deliberately

[_Trevor]

Seriously though, are you not familiar with calling a person an idiot because of something unintelligent they've done?

Person A: Did you hear Jim said X?

Person B: Wow. Jim's an idiot.

Trevor: Hey, that's fallacy of hasty generalization!

It's common parlance. I presume you didn't learn English conversation from robots from the future. Perhaps in my rush for a rhetorical flourish I too hastily assumed my audience would give me enough credit to presume I was speaking like this, but there's not really the logical fallacy your pinning on me here.

Dude, why don't you just let it go? I did.

[_beastie]

Boy, this reminds me of Book of Mormon apologia.

from the quotemining page EA linked earlier:

Another aspect of this practice is that these "quotes" are widely passed around and used repeatedly by creationists, while neither bothering to check the original source nor giving any indication that they are taken from secondary sources. This is shown by the fact (as can be seen in a number of these cases) that there are errors that can and have crept into these quotes or their citations which are then propagated by other creationists when they are copied without attribution. (Ironically, this is the same type of "copying error", i.e. mutation, that can be used to trace phylogenetic histories of populations.) More importantly, such thoughtless iterations demonstrate an unwillingness to understand the underlying issues and an indifference to the ideas and reputations of the people whose names they are appropriating.

Heh. This is an apt description of what happened with sorenson's flawed metallurgy sources. Believer after believer repeated these citations, while apparently not one ever took the time to actually find the original source and check Sorenson's citations. Sorenson was either embarrassingly incompetent or deliberately deceptive with these citations, but you'd never know it by all the believers who passed them around.

I think it's the effect of confirmation bias. Believers are so eager for evidence supporting the Book of Mormon that they will believe anything handed to them, without applying reasonable skepticism. It seems to me the same could be said for theists who find evolution such a threat. And, of course, not all theists find evolution threatening, but a certain group definitely does.

[Guest]

So one thing is clear. Dart has, indeed, read apologetic websites devoted to debunking evolution.

The one and only web article I have looked at is one which all of these citations derive. I can understand why beastie would go nuts, get all excited and assume I got them from any whacked out Bible thiumping page she thinks she uncovered, but the fact is every single citation I used came from an article written by a true scholar, and the article was called, "Is Evolution a 'Fact' of Science?" The point of the article was to challenge the attempt to make it a fact by people like Gould. The article can be found here:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1985

My purpose was to show schmo that if I am a daft moron, then so are plenty of other reputable and intelligent scholars. I thought I made that clear by saying this after every citation. Notice I didn't provide any of the citations that said evolution was a fraud, a gimmick and "anti-knowledge." I didn't do that because I think these statements are pretty dumb, and I don't believe them. Again, I'm not anti-evolution but you guys seem to want me to be no matter what.

I specifically cited comments from evolutionists mentioned in that piece (ignoring the Christian creationist scientists who are also mentioned in the article), those who suggested the theory was not perfect and implied there were holes in it. But of course, I expected someone would start digging for the citations so they could discredit the website. This is the equivalent of Mormons who reject Robert Ritner because he is affiliated with some anti-Mormon ministry. His educated opinion matters nothing at all to them for the same reasons people here would prefer to dismiss the point I made with these citations. These were in direct response to schmo who said I was daft for daring to question evolution. If no scinetist had ever questioned it, I probably wouldn't have either. But the fact that some do is enough to show critical thinking in this area is not a simple matter of ignorance.

“Looking at his book right now”. Ok. Have you actually read his book?

Don't be ridiulous beastie. Do you really think I bought a book and placed it on my book shelf just so I can look at it? Of course I have read it. Ever since that ridiculous film, "What the bleep do we know?" I have been gradually reading up on this topic. But it has never been something I was ready to argue pro or con. I'm still studying it when I have time, but I do have a few books on the subject from both sides of the argument. And come to think of it, that stupid movie could only manage to find one reputable academic (Dave Albert from Columbia University) to support their claim that physics and consciousness were related, but then even Albert said he disagreed with the movie's conclusion that consiousness had anything to do with quantum mechanics, and he felt like he was taken for a ride by being misrepresented. I wonder why the film directors didn't ask one of Tarski's friends, since he seems to think they all agree with the position that "consiousness is explained" through modern science.

How would you react if an LDS TBM started “just asking questions” about criticisms of Book of Abraham claims

You've got it backwards. I was a TBM who "just asked questions" about the validity of Book of Abraham claims, and they reacted in the same exact way you are reacting. You haven't answered a single question because you're not here to debate. You came here to disrupt. What you are doing is precisely what the MADites do when then say "Oh yea, well how much Egyptian do you know anyway?" It is teh same exact thing! And of course, they ride on the coat tails of the few experts there, like Hauglid and Gee. The same exact thing is happening here.

and in those “just questions” made clearly erroneous and ill-informed statements (like ‘apes haven’t changed’)

You're still grasping onto that for dear life aren't you? I said this after providing examples of the famous drawing of the evolution man who gradually walked away from his ape ancestors. I haven't even hinted at this since the first post, made several days ago, and yet you keep hanging onto it as if it is what's driving my participation here. The responses offered were that this image, which is found in virtually every educational textbook on the subject, is "misleading." Fine. So the educational system is the problem, not an alleged "willful ignorance" by creationists.

I completely accept what has been explained on that point. Yes, humans and apes come from the same source according to evolution theory. I never once rejected that or questioned it. Again I was pointing out that ignorance (the issue raised by schmo) is understandable given current state of evolution education. Most humans, even educated ones, never take college courses in biological sciences. Most educational tools on evolution include a "misleading" explanation that clearly shows humans evolving from what appears to be modern apes. EA even said that to say humans evolved from apes is a "fair statement." Then he had to think about it for a minute to realize that this was misleading as well because he didn't add the qualifer "modern" into the equation. But he said, "While it is unlikely any modern ape is part of an ancestor population of humans, the common ancestors we share almost certainly would be classified as apes."

So how is this any different from my "ill-informed" question? Technically, modern apes didn't really change much at all, if they changed at all. Humans evolved into an entirely different species whereas apes remained apes. Saying they changed to "modern" apes still doesn't answer the concern: Why didn't they evolve into humans just as we did? This was addressed by EA only after he brought up "ecological pressures," which of course, is just another "proposal" that cannot be verified using the scientific model. We don't know for a fact that apes wandering out of the forrests would result in hair loss, an increase in intelligence etc. Tarksi "proposed" a social scenario that he thinks could explain the increased intelligence of humans, but again, this is something that cannot be verified using the scientific model. It is just a "proposal."

So if someone as educated as EA is can initially call it a "fair" assumption that man evolved from apes, then how in the hell can you bitch and moan if someone with no college education in biological sciences, actually makes that same assumption? No, I don't expect you to answer this anymore than I expect any direct responses about the scientific method. Apparently, the scientific method is only to be taken seriously as an ultimate standard for truth whenever applied to religious claims.

ridiculous generalizations (nobody has even attempted to explain this)

And nobody had explained it at that time. And even still nobody has really explained how science proves apes walking into the desert would lose their hair. It is just another "proposal" that hasn't been proved via the scientific method. Why are you pretending I had made this statement about something that had already been explained? I think there is a reason you're not looking up what my statement was in reference to and noting that this was before any attempted explanation was given. My stamenet came tuesday night at 7:48 pm. Please point to a single explanation or response that came before then. I said:

"How does [adaptation] explain why species X forked at some point in time and one group dropped 90% of its body hair, became physically weaker yet intellectually stronger, whereas the rest became some other variant of primate? What plausible scenario explains how this sort of adaptation took place?"

Nobody had explained it at that time.

EA refused to answer it in the first two or three posts but then made vague reference to ecological pressures. It wasn't until later that I silentkid gave it a serious try with his commentary about mutations. It was also later that netony was brought up. I will have to read up on this before commenting further but this doesn't mean the proposal has been substantiated. It has only been proposed thus far - on the forum that is.

quoted extensively from LDS apologia, and would not answer direct questions about the sources of his/her information, how would you react?

Beastie, you're not even in this discussion. I'm not here to answer questions from anybody who decides to drop in and stir the pot. I have to respond to several posters as it is. All you have done is unpleasantly drop onto the scene and challenge me to a pissing contest on books owned. You don't even try to disguise what it is you're trying to insinuate here. And now it appears you have pulled a schmo and made EA lose his compsure and resort to name-calling. Now that is an accomplishment! And that is about the extent of your contribution here. Schmo got Tarski to do it, and now you're dragging EA to your levels. Congratulations guys! Another promising thread bites the dust. This could have been a highly educational thread if you would have allowed it.

EA, if that one particular citation was taken out of context, then I believe you. But just know iit was taken out of context by Bert Thompson who authored the article. No, I did not read that paper. I read that article some months ago and I remembered it when schmo made it sound like only uneducated people ask challenging questions about evolution. I was passing along the citation from that article. I thought it would have been abundantly clear Thompson was the one responding to these guys. I thought i made that clear at the end. But I had no idea this article was found on other anti-evolution websites. The article I read seemed to be trying to argue that evolution should remain a theory and not a scientific fact. I don't think Thompson should be dismissed because he writes other materials in favor of religion, anymore than you should dismiss Dawkins because he writes material that attacks religion.

Having looked at the citation you provided, it still seems that the "way out of this difficulty" relied on a proposal that is still just a proposal, not something that can be verified using the scientific method. Now if you think a simple "proposal" means the "problem really isn't a problem," then all I can say is wow. Imagine if we tried dealing with all our daily problems with this philosophy. I propose my dad doesn't really have lung cancer! Since when did this kind of thing fly in science?

Now I see the author tells us that there is a "fair amount" of evidence to support his proposal that RNA came first, but does he ever really tell us what that evidence is? Is it something that is just consistent with the proposal, or is it really something that points to its validity? How fair is fair?

[_beastie]

dart's statement:

How does it explain why species X forked at some point in time and one group dropped 90% of its body hair, became physically weaker yet intellectually stronger, whereas the rest became some other variant of primate? What plausible scenario explains how this sort of adaptation took place? I know it is simply taken for granted that it must have happened, but nobody has actually explained it, other than to say that is how it must have happened since the alternative (Genesis) is just a myth.

Dart -

Are you actually pretending that this statement only meant "nobody on THIS THREAD has explained it?"

You have GOT to be kidding me.

[_dartagnan]

Pay close attention.

... nobody has actually explained it, other than to say that is how it must have happened since the alternative (Genesis) is just a myth

Are you actually pretending that this statement refers to every evolution commentator outside this forum?

You have GOT to be kidding me.

This is what I have heard on this forum for quite some time. You guys absolutely love to drag in Genesis and theology in order to make evolution sound more plausible. Genesis isn't history, and most theology is crap. By comparison, just about anything looks fantastic. But by doing this is hinders and effort to really critically examine the theory itself because anyone who does is automatically assumed to have a creationist agenda. That is why I was careful to cite only scientists who were not creationists.

What I have read elsewhere are proposals and even more theories within the theory about how and why some species evolved the way they did. What has been presented on the forum are just more proposals of the same stuff. But nobody has actually demonstrated, using the scientific method that humans evolved to humans because they wandered out of a jungle or whatever. Throwing out a proposal (i.e. "maybe there were social or ecological factors that caused them to evolve") isn't really an "explanation" unless you just accept it uncritically. It sounds more like attempts to come up with anything that "explains" a predetermined position. But it doesn't really "explain" anything beyond saying, essentially, that is how it might have happened. Or maybe that is how the mutation process might have responded to these ecological or social pressures. We don't know for sure. But then, I guess that's why evolution remains a theory.

Are you going to address the scientific method issue? Oh, that's right. You were never really interested in engaging the discussion. You're here only to ask questions as a distraction and find ways to discredit the uncomfortable questions. Sorry, I forgot who I was talking to.

I only have time to post once every day or two, so I was hoping to see something of substance from Tarski or EA tonight. I guess you guys have succeeded in your mission and officially killed this thread. Hope you're proud of yourselves.

[Tator]

dart's statement in context:

I do not see how natural selection explains why humans evolved into humans from an ape-like species while others did not.
As I understand it, natural selection is when favorable herditary traits become more dominant and unfavorable ones are gradually dropped. It seems unlikely that this process could happen without some kind of goal in mind, specifically survival. Adaptaion explains why some species can camoflauge themselves naturally.

How does it explain why species X forked at some point in time and one group dropped 90% of its body hair, became physically weaker yet intellectually stronger, whereas the rest became some other variant of primate? What plausible scenario explains how this sort of adaptation took place? I know it is simply taken for granted that it must have happened, but nobody has actually explained it, other than to say that is how it must have happened since the alternative (Genesis) is just a myth.

Natural selection alone can't explain how one cell evolved into billions of different species. It doesn't even begin to explain it because natural selection takes place once a group of different species already exist. With only one living cell in existence, there is nothing for it to"select" or "adapt" to.

And then, when I called him on this statement:

Quote:
Seriously, have you read anything about evolution?



I have heard assertions but nothing that sounds remotely plausible. From what I can tell it seems to be mostly a circular argument that takes evolution for granted, and then assumes this must account for the existence of life in all its varieties.

Sure, dart, sure, you were just talking about the posters on this thread...even as several posters were already making the attempt to give you such an explanation.

You're trying to rewrite history right on this thread. You're clearly talking about your "understanding" of evolution. That "understanding" includes "nobody has actually explained it." And then you explained you've "heard assertions". But that was all just referring to this thread. Right.

by the way, it's not kosher to pull so many citations from one web article without citing it.

And yeah, you're right, my plot all along was to derail this thread because, deep down, I "know" evolution is full of baloney and I'm deathly afraid that dart, with all his education on the matter and apolgeticspress at his fingertips, will expose it for the sham it is. Then I'll have to give up my "religion".

[_beastie]

There are 18 species of bowerbirds. The males of each species construct elaborate "nests". The nests of each species is different.

Why?

[Guest]

Technically, modern apes didn't really change much at all, if they changed at all. Humans evolved into an entirely different species whereas apes remained apes. Saying they changed to "modern" apes still doesn't answer the concern: Why didn't they evolve into humans just as we did? This was addressed by EA only after he brought up "ecological pressures," which of course, is just another "proposal" that cannot be verified using the scientific model. We don't know for a fact that apes wandering out of the forrests would result in hair loss, an increase in intelligence etc. Tarksi "proposed" a social scenario that he thinks could explain the increased intelligence of humans, but again, this is something that cannot be verified using the scientific model. It is just a "proposal."

Dart, why humans evolved from a common ancestor of the modern ape has been explained to you. I linked a really simple, simple article on this -- others went into detail. There is also evidence of early apes that you can view online and in museums!! It doesn't matter if this scenario works or that scenario works -- the bottom line is there WAS evolution from an early ape-like species to what we now consider the modern man:

Does this look like anyone you know, dart?



Sit next to him on the train??

This is such a lovely site: http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/primate.html

Have you been to a museum of natural history, ever?

Please click here and scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the various "early human species"

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

Now, if you can look and see the evolution of man and can look in the mirror and recognize that is NOT you why is it so hard to comprehend that species evolve?

I just don't understand why there is such resistance to this. I don't know if you poo poo everything about evolution, dart -- yet, I'm thinking about people like Gaz and others that I just can't comprehend why they can't see the MOUNTAIN of evidence for evolution and somehow deny it.

Even without understanding the simple aspects of it (which everyone should -- since they're simple to get!) one would atleast have the wherewithal to recognize that we're not cavemen anymore!

[_EAllusion]

EA, if that one particular citation was taken out of context, then I believe you.

Oh, there's more to come. You deserve to be called out for your firsthand or secondhand dishonesty or incompetence.

Having looked at the citation you provided, it still seems that the "way out of this difficulty" relied on a proposal that is still just a proposal, not something that can be verified using the scientific method. Now if you think a simple "proposal" means the "problem really isn't a problem," then all I can say is wow. Imagine if we tried dealing with all our daily problems with this philosophy. I propose my dad doesn't really have lung cancer! Since when did this kind of thing fly in science?

Have you even read the article at this point? A Nobel prize was awarded for the discovery of ribozymes. They exist. That flat demonstrates that his problem isn't actually a problem. More specifically, proteins and nucleic acids to code for them would not have to arise spontaneously at the same time. Orgel clearly wrote that line to set himself up to talk about the RNA-world hypothesis. He forwards a view in the paper that is completely opposed to the one you represented with your out of context quote.

Now I see the author tells us that there is a "fair amount" of evidence to support his proposal that RNA came first, but does he ever really tell us what that evidence is? Is it something that is just consistent with the proposal, or is it really something that points to its validity? How fair is fair?

You could 1) Read the article

and/or 2) Do a search on the RNA-World theory on pubmed.

Yo