Looks like I missed this earlier post...
So the fossil record itself, is evidence that one type of animal turns into a different type.
Is that what you’re saying.
Along with many other lines of evidence, the fossil record supports the idea that speciation happens, yes.
You, like many creationists, have in mind an idea that there are fixed "kinds" of animals (you say "type of animal" but you mean the same thing as the other creationists). The problem with that is that you can't even define a "kind" in any coherent way. You would hold, for instance, that the land-dwelling ancestor species of whales must have been a different "kind" or "type" of animal from whales, because "obviously" creatures with legs are a different "kind" than creatures with fins, or something along those lines. On the basis that "kinds" are fixed and essentially immutable, those land-based species could never evolve into whales. You consider that notion ludicrous.
On the other hand, you say that you "believe" in "microevolution", which means that you allow some range of variation within "kinds". But where are the no-go zones when it comes to the amount of variation that is allowed? Is a foot-like limb developing webbing between the toes too much variation, or is it an acceptable within-kind variation? How about if it goes further and the toes actually fuse together (this is happening over many generations, you understand)? Is the resulting animal still of the same "kind"? What happens if the skin then grows in such a way as to completely cover the toe bones, leaving a flipper-like appendage? Have we crossed the unbreakable "kind" barrier at that point? Is this imagined progression impossible? What, in your creationist model, stops this kind of microevolution from happening? At what stage do you decide that there has been a bit too much "micro" going on for your liking, and somebody needs to put a stop to the nonsense before the string of "micros" turns accidentally into a "macro"? At what stage in the process does your God apply the brakes to ensure that "macroevolution" never happens?
Where have I asserted this?
You don't have a theory that explains the diversity of life, or how organisms evolve, even in a micro sense? You say you believe in micro-evolution. Are you telling me you have no idea how or why it happens, even though you believe it happens?
Do the research yourself.
Why, when asked for the reasons for your beliefs on the topic of evolution, you can never point us to anything? It's always "Use google to investigate for yourself", but there's never any evidence that
you have ever bothered googling anything yourself.
Once this crisis is over, just go out one day and randomly ask people who accept darwinism as a scientific fact, what makes them think it is such. You will find that they can regurgitate information. Other than that, they have nothing to say about it.
Randomly ask people if they accept that Covid-19 is caused by a virus. You'll have a similar finding. They are unlikely to be able to explain how we know it's caused by a virus. Most people will only be able to wave their hands vaguely in the direction of some scientists and doctors who have established (somehow) that there's a virus which causes this sickness.
Why aren't you out there berating people for not being expert virologists? Why aren't you preaching that the virologists are just one more example of the Emperor's New Clothes - nothing really there, nobody can really establish that viruses exist, etc. etc.?
Why aren't you telling us all how proud you are that virology doesn't matter to your life and so you don't have to believe it?
What is special about your attitude to evolution that distinguishes that from all the other expert knowledge you don't know about?
I’m a bloke. I can only concentrate on one subject at a time.
Avoid and deflect. I'm seeing that a lot lately.
I haven’t looked into it.
Plus I don’t care whether or not it’s a fact.
I interact with whatever it, 24/7.
I don’t care what shape the planet is. Because it makes no difference to me.
But you've got your knickers in such a knot about evolution that here you are, posting little other than contentless snipes at the nasty evolutionists, and that's essentially all you do here. You're constantly telling us that evolution doesn't matter to you, that it doesn't affect your life blah blah blah, but you keep banging on about it. Why?
I don’t put darwinism in the category of science fact. It seems to be a philosophy tagged on to a fact. I’m wondering if it is even necessary, other than as a philosophy.
I have already talked about the "fact/theory" thing with you in a previous post in this thread, though you largely ignored what I wrote and it obviously didn't sink in. Never mind.
Nothing is "necessary". You can go and live in a cave somewhere and bury your head in the sand if it makes you happy. Meanwhile, advances in biology and medicine will go right on being made as a direct result of insights gained from our understanding of evolution and how it works.
James. Whether or not , I am using a “creationist ploy” shouldn’t be of any concern to you.
It concerns me only to the extent that it shows that you aren't making any real effort to break out of your bubble on this. You're just one more misguided (literally!) creationist who is unwilling to find out anything real about the topic. You prefer to believe the lies you're being fed. You lap them up. It's a pity. You exist in a sort of self-imposed darkness.
The truth of the matter is, you cannot show “macro evolution” occurs. You can only infer it. But the inference do not add up. Maybe they did in Darwins time, but they don’t now.
Like I said in my earlier post, everything that matters in science in a theory. Science is built on inference. Induction not deduction. The theory of electromagnetism, which gave you the screen you're reading this on, is an inference from the study of nature. You can argue that electromagnetism is not a "scientific fact" now, if you like. Go to it! That will be about as useful as your assertion that natural selection is not a scientific fact.
Hasn’t it occurred to you that maybe darwinism is not the mechanism?
You ought to realise that "Darwinism", by which I assume you mean natural selection, is just one piece of a much larger puzzle. It is not
the mechanism of evolution. It is just one of a number of mechanisms recognised in the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory.
So, you don't believe in "Darwinism" (natural selection)? How about sexual selection, then? Do you accept that? How about genetic drift? How about the crossing over of genes in sexual reproduction? How about allopatric speciation? (Ooh, I said "speciation". Kill. Kill.)
But let's look at your preferred alternative mechanism to "Darwinism". Oh wait, you don't have one, do you? Or do you? What's the "mechanism" of "microevolution", according to you?
Experts come under fire, even lose funding, or their jobs, for exposing darwinism.
Unsurprising that you think that science works like your religion, where you have to accept the dogma or be expelled.
That’s like a Christian saying you should not believe Islam. The “No true Scotsman” fallacy.
No. It's not like that, because the non-experts I referred to can be shown to lack the relevant qualifications and experience in the fields in which they claim expertise, and the experts who lie have been caught out in their lies. In other words, it's not a matter of setting the bar too high. It's the fact that those people didn't clear the bar when it was set at the standard height.
If darwinism is true, all realities are true.
?
But how am I harming myself by lacking a belief in darwinism?
You're living in a self-imposed intellectual vacuum, that's all. There's a beautiful world outside but you never let yourself out of your dark room long enough to go and look at it.
Not that it's relevant to the discussion of evolution, but in the wider context of this thread, there's a reason why atheists are called freethinkers. Religion is a cage you put yourself in.
Can we use that logic for those who bang on about religion, and God, all the time.
I'm quite happy to admit that my atheism is important to me. I'm interested in looking in at religion from the outside these days. My current perspective gives me a much clearer view of it that I had when I was a theist like you. Not that I was ever a theist quite like you.
You keep saying (in the past) that darwinism can be accepted, whole remaining a theist.
Unless you don’t mean it.
Accepting science isn't incompatible with being a theist. You don't have to be an evolution denier just because you believe in a god.
I appreciate that
you find the ideas of evolution ideologically threatening, but we can put that down to the specifics of your core beliefs about your version of God. Other theists don't necessarily share your baggage when it comes to this topic.
In other words, when I wrote "your belief" in the passage you quoted from my post I was referring specifically to your - Jan's - belief, not to some generalised notion of theistic belief.
As does the bible, as does most scripture. Not only do they all relate to each other, they relate to the observed facts, on some level.
But I was referring to something more specific.
Is this another mystery that comes courtesy of "they"? Are you going to tell me your secret knowledge, or keep it to yourself, now that you've brought it up?
