• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

House Science Comm. member calls science "Lies straight from the pits of hell"

BigTreeDeac said:
You will have to excuse me for an hour as I go to a lecture from a top scientist detailing the evolution of NK cells from lower verterbrates to humans.
Click to expand...

:rofl:

By the way, none of the things you mention are necessarily evidence of speciation. They are perfectly consistent with micro-evolution.

I'm going to jump off this line of discussion. You aren't convincing me and I'm not convincing you. Just note that all objections to the theory of evolution--or for that matter, any other scientific theory--are not necessarily predicated on religion. To think that way belies a certitude that misconstrues the nature of both science and religion. Christians, both modern and pre-modern, have given you many reasons to make that mistake, but it's a mistake nonetheless.
 
Shorty said:
Uh, I did read the thread. It may be up for debate among posters, some of whom are referencing unknown, modern theologians. But I think if you read the statement of faith for any Christian denomination, it includes a belief that Christ rose from the dead.
Click to expand...

I will respond to this in the "1 in 5" religion thread. Somehow that one and this one got morphed into one.
 
Junebug said:
:rofl:

By the way, none of the things you mention are necessarily evidence of speciation. They are perfectly consistent with micro-evolution.

I'm going to jump off this line of discussion. You aren't convincing me and I'm not convincing you. Just note that all objections to the theory of evolution--or for that matter, any other scientific theory--are not necessarily predicated on religion. To think that way belies a certitude that misconstrues the nature of both science and religion. Christians, both modern and pre-modern, have given you many reasons to make that mistake, but it's a mistake nonetheless.
Click to expand...

You can laugh all you want but I was really at that lecture as I attend a minimum of 3 research lectures every week. As you have done to every post of mine on this thread, you choose to ignore the entirety of my post because you can't actually refute any of it and focus on some minor detail like laughing about me actually increasing my knowledge of science instead of sticking to what I learned in Intro to Bio at Wake. I didn't end my career in science by getting a B.S. (or perhaps you got a B.A.). I went on to obtain a Ph.D. in Pathology and have spent my career to this point studying various immune mechanisms which underly human pathologies. Immunology is actually a great field to constantly see evidence for your "macro" evolution occurring. In any case, I was actually attending that lecture by Lewis Lanier, the Chair of the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at UCSF, in case you care to look him up, because I'm a scientist and that it what we do. We read and we listen to other data and we assess it and then we make our own determinations as to whether it impacts the way we view a system. You, on the other hand, just dismiss that which you don't believe (see every post I've made which has addressed your concerns but gone unanswered). I will respect your wish to no longer discuss this but suffice it to say that I think you would find it very difficult (as evidenced by you not doing it) to prove that my examples are explained by evolution within a species. Good luck to you in your endeavors to understand your surroundings.
 
BigTreeDeac said:
That would appear to be his argument though as usual he didn't actually make an argument. Just said I was wrong and moved on.
Click to expand...

I'm not laughing because I doubt you attended a lecture on evolution. I'm laughing because you felt the need to tell me you were attending a lecture on evolution.

I took immunology with Kuhn at Wake on my way to a BS in Bio. Regardless, I'm certain that your understanding of immunology is extremely advanced, and much greater than mine, considering my study of immunology ended there. Congrats. But that doesn't make you the authoritative word on evolution any more than the fact I have a JD makes me the authoritative word on international treaties.

As for whether humans have tails--how the hell should I know? All I am saying is that the evidence that our predecessors had tails--like the other evidence cited by BTD--is consistent with microevolution.
 
Junebug said:
I'm not laughing because I doubt you attended a lecture on evolution. I'm laughing because you felt the need to tell me you were attending a lecture on evolution.

I took immunology with Kuhn at Wake on my way to a BS in Bio. Regardless, I'm certain that your understanding of immunology is extremely advanced, and much greater than mine, considering my study of immunology ended there. Congrats. But that doesn't make you the authoritative word on evolution any more than the fact I have a JD makes me the authoritative word on international treaties.

As for whether humans have tails--how the hell should I know? All I am saying is that the evidence that our predecessors had tails--like the other evidence cited by BTD--is consistent with microevolution.
Click to expand...

Do you consider religion to be a theory, hypothesis, or a law? Why? ... with evidence and logic if you wouldn't mind. It is not everyday you see someone with a Bio degree and JD adamantly criticizing the evidence behind evolution while being a fervent religious believer. Save me the spiel about how the two are compatible and ask different questions. You are clearly capable of critical thinking, yet have decided to not apply it to an aspect of your life. I know this is likely painful for you to cut through the cognitive dissonance but for a few minutes I think it would be interesting if you took that critical thinking you apply to science and the law and broke down for me the objective argument for religion. Again, not interested in "prove that God doesn't exist!!" arguments or "we don't understand some things in science...therefore room for a belief in God!!" That is not how things work in science and you know that. If religion were a scientific theory discuss the strengths and weaknesses of it.

Or ignore this. either or.
 
I was curious if and how this thread could still be serious after 6 pages. So I clicked page 6 and saw "Junebug." 'Nuff said.
 
94Deac said:
I was curious if and how this thread could still be serious after 6 pages. So I clicked page 6 and saw "Junebug." 'Nuff said.
Click to expand...

As usual, your contribution is very insightful. Now go back to the kids' table and let the adults continue talking.
 
The kid here is the one that believes a fairytale and denies substantial evidence for the existence of both micro and macro evolution. Time to go back to Elementary school and learn some earth sciences.
 
Junebug said:
I'm not laughing because I doubt you attended a lecture on evolution. I'm laughing because you felt the need to tell me you were attending a lecture on evolution.

I took immunology with Kuhn at Wake on my way to a BS in Bio. Regardless, I'm certain that your understanding of immunology is extremely advanced, and much greater than mine, considering my study of immunology ended there. Congrats. But that doesn't make you the authoritative word on evolution any more than the fact I have a JD makes me the authoritative word on international treaties.

As for whether humans have tails--how the hell should I know? All I am saying is that the evidence that our predecessors had tails--like the other evidence cited by BTD--is consistent with microevolution.
Click to expand...

But here is the thing, no member of the Family Hominidae (apes, chimpanzees, orangutans, and humans) have an actual tail to my knowledge. So the lack of a tail isn't restricted to the species Homo sapien or even the genus Homo. In fact there are even non hominid primates which also lack tails which means that the evolutionary event we are discussing has happened within an Order and not a Family or Genus or Species. Since your definition of micro-evolution involves evolution within a species, there is no way it can explain a loss of a tail by an entire Family of primates. If micro-evolution resulted in the loss of a tail then you would have to accept that your definition of micro-evolution occurs within Orders of mammals to produce new taxonomical families and is not restricted within a species. That would, in fact, seem to be your concept of macro-evolution.

94Deac's comment aside, I am enjoying this back and forth even if neither of us will budge because I hope I am informing you of some things you may not have already known and if nothing else am informing others of something they don't know. It is rare to have an honest discussion about the scientific evidence, or in your mind lack of, surrounding evolution without it turning ugly and this really hasn't so far IMO.
 
Last edited:
BigTreeDeac said:
But here is the thing, no member of the Family Hominidae (apes, chimpanzees, orangutans, and humans) have an actual tail to my knowledge. So the lack of a tail isn't restricted to the species Homo sapien or even the genus Homo. In fact there are even non hominid primates which also lack tails which means that the evolutionary event we are discussing has happened within an Order and not a Family or Genus or Species. Since your definition of micro-evolution involves evolution within a species, there is no way it can explain a loss of a tail by an entire Family of primates. If micro-evolution resulted in the loss of a tail then you would have to accept that your definition of micro-evolution occurs within Orders of mammals to produce new taxonomical families and is not restricted within a species. That would, in fact, seem to be your concept of macro-evolution.

94Deac's comment aside, I am enjoying this back and forth even if neither of us will budge because I hope I am informing you of some things you may not have already known and if nothing else am informing others of something they don't know. It is rare to have an honest discussion about the scientific evidence, or in your mind lack of, surrounding evolution without it turning ugly and this really hasn't so far IMO.
Click to expand...

Pardon the turn of phrase, but you're doing the Lord's work here BTD. Impossible to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced. But I've enjoyed your posts.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
Pardon the turn of phrase, but you're doing the Lord's work here BTD. Impossible to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced. But I've enjoyed your posts.
Click to expand...

Thanks. If I became dissuaded from describing science because a person wasn't super receptive or didn't accept it at face value I would be failing in my perhaps my most important role, the dissemination of scientific knowledge.
 
BigTreeDeac said:
But here is the thing, no member of the Family Hominidae (apes, chimpanzees, orangutans, and humans) have an actual tail to my knowledge. So the lack of a tail isn't restricted to the species Homo sapien or even the genus Homo. In fact there are even non hominid primates which also lack tails which means that the evolutionary event we are discussing has happened within an Order and not a Family or Genus or Species. Since your definition of micro-evolution involves evolution within a species, there is no way it can explain a loss of a tail by an entire Family of primates. If micro-evolution resulted in the loss of a tail then you would have to accept that your definition of micro-evolution occurs within Orders of mammals to produce new taxonomical families and is not restricted within a species. That would, in fact, seem to be your concept of macro-evolution.

94Deac's comment aside, I am enjoying this back and forth even if neither of us will budge because I hope I am informing you of some things you may not have already known and if nothing else am informing others of something they don't know. It is rare to have an honest discussion about the scientific evidence, or in your mind lack of, surrounding evolution without it turning ugly and this really hasn't so far IMO.
Click to expand...

Two points about the alleged tail--(1) The fact that humans have a coccyx that is not inconsistent with a tail isn't really strong evidence that we actually had one in the past. The coccyx has muscle connection points that, if we didn't have them, would make life very uncomfortable for us, especially when sitting. Neither is the fact that in extremely rare cases some people are born with a shortened version of a pseudo-tail (i.e., without vertebrae). You wouldn't cite the fact that some people are born with 6 fingers as evidence that we used to have 6 fingers, would you? It's just a random mutation. To use the pseudo-tail as evidence that we had a tail at one point in the past is pretty selective. In truth, the coccyx is like the thymus--evolutionists used to think this was a vestigial organ and cited it in support of evolution, but it turns out it actually has a function. (You also cited the appendix as a vestigial organ. Turns out it has a function too, at least according to researchers at Duke University--http://www.news-medical.net/news/2007/10/08/30907.aspx.)) (2) Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that humans used to have tails, your conclusion above is not necessarily correct. In fact, it is equally consistent that other hominids either (a) never had tails or (b) also used to have tails and lost them for similar micro-evolutionary reasons for why we did.

I have heard many of your arguments before--when I was a Bio major at Wake. And I remember not being persuaded by them then either.

Finally, I too appreciate that this hasn't turned ugly. I hope to have another reasoned debate with you some time in the future.
 
Last edited:
Junebug said:
Two points about the alleged tail--(1) The fact that humans have a coccyx that is not inconsistent with a tail isn't really strong evidence that we actually had one in the past. The coccyx has muscle connection points that, if we didn't have them, would make life very uncomfortable for us, especially when sitting. Neither is the fact that in extremely rare cases some people are born with a shortened version of a pseudo-tail (i.e., without vertebrae). You wouldn't cite the fact that some people are born with 6 fingers as evidence that we used to have 6 fingers, would you? It's just a random mutation. To use the pseudo-tail as evidence that we had a tail at one point in the past is pretty selective. In truth, the coccyx is like the thymus--evolutionists used to think this was a vestigial organ and cited it in support of evolution, but it turns out it actually has a function. (You also cited the appendix as a vestigial organ. Turns out it has a function too, at least according to researchers at Duke University--http://www.news-medical.net/news/2007/10/08/30907.aspx.)) (2) Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that humans used to have tails, your conclusion above is not necessarily correct. In fact, it is equally consistent that other hominids either (a) never had tails or (b) also used to have tails and lost them for similar micro-evolutionary reasons for why we did.

I have heard many of your arguments before--when I was a Bio major at Wake. And I remember not being persuaded by them then either.

Finally, I too appreciate that this hasn't turned ugly. I hope to have another reasoned debate with you some time in the future.
Click to expand...

What about whales and their vestigial leg bones. Or their flippers that are homologous to the human arm? Did both whales and humans develop the same bone structure for similar micro-evolutionary reasons?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top