Nothing — 29 June 2017
Facebook Discussion about Evolution

One day a video appeared on my Facebook page. I am not sure if it appeared as an advertisement or if it was because a Facebook friend posted it and it just happened to show up on my page. Whatever the reason, it appeared and I responded to it.

The original posting was on a website called Slate.com, and was a video supposedly showing 50 million years of whale evolution in one minute. Essentially, it was an animation that used naturalistic evolutionary beliefs to show what the animator thought must have happened for the modern whale to have evolved from its animal ancestors to its present form. You can see the original video at: http://www.slate.com/articles/video/video/2017/05/watch_the_50_million_year_evolution_of_the_whale_in_1_minute.html?wpsrc=kwfacebookvid&kwp_0=426172

After I made an initial comment, many other people began to jump into the conversation. This gave me the opportunity to interact with various people about the serious problems regarding naturalistic evolution. Below are the conversations that took place. As you read, you will see that there were some conversations that I engaged, and others I did not step into. You will also see that while most of the people who responded believe in naturalistic evolution, there were some others who agreed with me.

Explanation of the Way Facebook Conversations Work
If you don’t understand how conversations on Facebook work, it can be a bit confusing. So, before I dive into the dialog itself, let me give a short description.

Anyone can put up a response at any time to an initial posting (in this case the video). Once someone posts a comment, other people have a choice to either post an independent comment or reply to one someone else made. Sometimes the replies to a particular initial comment can go on for a while as an independent conversation.

In order to make it easy to understand, I have designated the posts that were initial comments as “Initial Posting.” All of the comments below any initial posting are replies to that first one. Thus, there ends up being numerous conversations going on at the same time.

But even that is not always a clean way of looking at it. Sometimes people may think they are responding to a particular part of the conversation, but put their post in the wrong place. Thus, there are some posts that may seem a bit random, but are really responses to something someone else wrote in a different place. As such, you need to be a bit flexible in your reading; you need to keep in mind the big picture of all the comments. Doing this, you should be able to grasp the arguments people use to support their belief in naturalistic evolution, as well as the core reasons why it is not viable as a scientific belief.

With that understanding, following is the interaction that took place based on Slate.com’s video.

Freddy Davis (Initial Posting)
Mind blowing? Right! Not even true. 100% speculation based on a philosophical presupposition that has no actual basis in science.
June 9 at 7:30am

Nick Doe
I’m guessing you’re quite well versed in philosophical presuppositions. Lol.
June 9 at 4:47pm

Freddy Davis
Yes
June 9 at 4:48pm

Edgar Albatroe
Bible thumping Jesus freak alert
June 12 at 12:18pm

Freddy Davis
People who can’t give a rational argument resort to insults. Sad really. Are you saying, then that you are a Christian hating Atheist?
June 12 at 1:22pm

Sarah Taylor
The fossils of Ambulocetus have been quite compelling and fit nicely as a transitional species. There has also been extensive study of the inner ear structures of many terrestrial, aquatic, and semi-aquatic mammal species which has taught us, among other things, that the group known as baleen whales have an ear structure designed to detect infrasonic frequencies, while the toothed whales have an ear designed for ultrasonic frequencies. When compared with the fossils of extinct species and the bones of extant species, we can see some fairly linear developments through time. I think comparative anatomy isn’t mentioned nearly enough in discussions about evolution.
June 12 at 9:24pm

Timothy Ender
I am guessing you went to Trump University, right?
June 13 at 9:58am

Timothy Ender
Oh you’re a religious fanatic, nevermind thought you were a normal person with a real education. My bad.
June 13 at 9:59am

Timothy Ender
I love it when someone who openly and proudly believes in a talking snake and a boat full of animals, questions modern science.
June 13 at 10:00am

Freddy Davis
Another person who has to resort to insult because of an inability to make a rational argument. So, are you another Christian hating Atheist?
June 13 at 10:01am

Freddy Davis
Sarah Taylor Interesting speculation, but there is no actual science to back up your idea. Similarity does not imply connection lacking actual science to demonstrate it is true (or even possible).
June 13 at 10:02am

Adam Birnbaum
So we dismiss what actual scientists do because … uh … why are we dismissing that? Scientists don’t have to personally satisfy YOU to be correct. I also note the bizarre assumption that if evolution somehow is incorrect, that the only possible alternative is that your personal supernatural beliefs are the “true” cause, as opposed to any others.

I don’t think you’re a scientist. I think your claim that things have “no basis in science” is down to wilfully ignoring things you don’t want to be true, rather than any serious study. The science is there in fossils, in genetic analysis, in basically all of modern biology. But you can choose to ignore all that and make silly blanket statements about how the work that evolutionary biologists do doesn’t exist.
June 15 at 8:39am

Freddy Davis
Who ever said anything about dismissing what scientists do? When scientists do actual science, it is a wonderful thing. However, when it comes to the topic of naturalistic evolution, we are not talking about science, we are talking about philosophy. There is no science in existence to demonstrate that it is true, or could possibly even be true. The conclusion that “evolutionary scientists” draw is not based on science. They begin with naturalistic presuppositions and try to organize the data to fit their beliefs. That is not science. If you have done some actual science to show how naturalistic evolution could be so, I would be very interested in seeing it.
June 13 at 1:00pm

Kurt ? Austin
If you put faith in an Iron Age mythology, I expect you to live like people did in the Iron Age rather than taking advantage of the scientific advances that have happened in the meantime.
June 13 at 1:59pm

Freddy Davis
That comment makes no sense at all. Why would you say such a thing? It has nothing to do with whether or not naturalistic evolution is true.
June 13 at 2:03pm

Freddy Davis
BTW, Kurt, cute whiskers.
June 13 at 2:03pm

Ivan Stanko
@Freddy Davis

How is this for evidence?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

The evolution of whales
The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales,…
EVOLUTION.BERKELEY.EDU
June 14 at 10:32am

Freddy Davis
I read the article and there is nothing there but assertions based on a set of naturalistic philosophical presuppositions. There is no science whatsoever to demonstrate that the speculations of the writer are, or even could be, true.
June 14 at 1:33pm

Freddy Davis
That event (what is written in the Bible) is not based on a philosophical presupposition. That is in a historical document – but you knew that, right?
June 14 at 2:28pm

Bracken Markins
Freddy Davis I’m going to regret this, but can you point to the science that backs up some sort of supernatural intervention?
June 14 at 2:46pm

Freddy Davis
Actually, that is not even a legitimate request. Science belongs only in the realm of the natural, which is, by definition, outside of the natural. What is seems that you are asking is for me to prove, using science, that God exists. Of course that cannot be done (just as naturalistic philosophy cannot be demonstrated by science). This does not mean, of course, that there is no evidence for the existence of God, it is just that the evidence is not “natural” evidence.
June 14 at 2:52pm

Lyle Tipple
http://www.transitionalfossils.com/
(A few) transitional fossils
A partial list of transitional fossils.
TRANSITIONALFOSSILS.COM
June 14 at 3:00pm

Freddy Davis
There is no way to know that these are actually transitional fossils. Just because someone deems them so does not mean they are. Where is the actual science to show that’s what they are? There is none. (And did you not even read the two warnings that are in the article itself? Really?)
June 14 at 3:04pm

Michael Kabik
Freddy Davis Read MORE like Stephen J. Gould because you really are clueless. FACT
June 14 at 5:23pm

Freddy Davis
Really? Then show me how I am wrong. You simply have not given facts, you are asserting a set of philosophical assumptions. If your assumptions are right, then you have me. But they are not, and you cannot show them to be true.
June 14 at 5:26pm

Adam Birnbaum
The naturalistic presuppositions that you’re complaining about are what the rest of us call causation. You can choose to conclude nothing at all from a datable lineage of similar animal fossils with punctuated changes that point directly to what look like related animals that exist today, but don’t expect to convince anyone with that argument. Yes, you can dismiss that as “philosophy” if it pleases you. Yes, we assume things work a certain way, among them that time is linear, that the measurable ages of fossils are roughly correct, and that the many transitional forms we see form an evolutionary lineage. What’s the other option? What’s the second-best interpretation? I’m not hearing one. If you have a superior theory, what is it?
June 15 at 8:45am

Freddy Davis
Actually, no. The naturalistic presuppositions I am referring to relate to the belief that the natural universe is all that exists, thus everything in existence is explainable using natural explanations. Your explanation is not based on science, but on a set of assumptions about the nature of reality (that there must be a natural explanation for everything). You have not given any science to demonstrate the truth of what you are saying, but are using a set of unproven and unprovable assumptions to speculate about how the many life forms that exist today came into existence – and yes, that is philosophy, not science. The fossils, nature of time, and measuring techniques that you are referring to are simply data. The data must be interpreted through some kind of lens. You have chosen to use a naturalistic lens without demonstrating that that particular lens is true or valid.

My interpretation? There is a creator (and we can know him, by the way). Honto, desu yo!
June 15 at 9:05am

Adam Birnbaum
Sorry, that’s gibberish. Science is based entirely on observable or measurable phenomena. There can be no “science” that makes room for unproven, unprovable, and completely immeasurable supernatural prime motivators. Any system of thought that DID include such presuppositions would be non-science by definition. You’re demanding that your personal set of superstitions be included a domain where they do not belong. No, we’re not doing that.
June 15 at 11:09am

Freddy Davis
You seem not to understand what I have written. I have not included science as a part of defining anything related to the supernatural. What I have said is that there is a part of reality that transcends the natural – and natural science is not a viable methodology for doing study related to that arena. That fact does not lessen, in any respect, the viability of the scientific method regarding our quest to understand the natural universe. Christians value science to the same degree Naturalists do.

The other part of my point that you seem not to have understood is that Naturalism, itself (the basis for your argument), is no less a religious point of view than the Theism that I believe. There is no science that can demonstrate the truth or viability of Naturalism’s presuppositions, which makes what you believe a matter of religious faith, not of science. You simply can’t have it both ways. In other words, your personal set of “superstitions” do not supersede my “superstitions” unless you can prove, using the scientific method, that Naturalism reflects how reality actually works.
June 15 at 11:24am

Jim Alfredson
Freddy has obviously never read an actual book on evolution. Or science for that matter.

“What I have said is that there is a part of reality that transcends the natural – and natural science is not a viable methodology for doing study related to that arena.”

Prove it. Wait, I already know your answer… you can’t prove it because it exists outside the natural world… thus faith. How convenient.

“The other part of my point that you seem not to have understood is that Naturalism, itself (the basis for your argument, is no less a religious point of view than the Theism that I believe.”

Nonsense. You can offer absolutely no proof of your theistic claims. Whereas naturalistic claims are backed up by mountains of empirical evidence. That you dismiss said evidence due to your own ignorance of the scientific method doesn’t change anything. It just marks you as doxastically closed and beholden to your preconceived notion that your religion must be true; therefor anything that doesn’t fit must be false. You are trapped in a simplistic dichotomous worldview.

I’m always amused by theists who discount the field of evolutionary biology, which has withstood over 150 years of discovery including the modern discipline of genetics, which could’ve easily toppled the entire thing but instead bolsters it way beyond the proof even offered by the fossil record. The scientific method that has produced our modern understanding of evolution is exactly the same method used to create the incredible masterwork of technology, the transistorized computer, that they use to spout their Bronze Age rubbish.

Oh, the irony.
June 15 at 11:47am

Freddy Davis
Oh, the irony, indeed. So, you really believe that your naturalistic worldview is based on the scientific method? OK, then: the most basic presupposition of Naturalism is that the natural universe is all that exists. So, using the scientific method (which is what you are requiring me to use to prove Theism – even though that is not a presupposition of Theism) answer the following:
1. What is the origin of the matter and energy that make up the natural universe?
2. What is the origin of life?
3. What biological mechanism accounts for the variety of life forms that exist in the world today (remember, you have to show this using actual science)?
4. What is the origin of consciousness?

The fact is, your assertions are not based on science, they are based on your naturalistic assumptions (unproven by science) that it is possible to understand all of reality based on the scientific method. Your assertions are simply not true.
June 15 at 11:58am

Jim Alfredson
To answer 1, 2, and 4, we don’t know. And that’s okay. That we don’t know doesn’t automatically prove there is some supernatural explanation. That’s the god of the gaps fallacy.

To answer 3, that’s evolution via natural selection. Just because you don’t accept it or claim it isn’t science doesn’t make it so. You have not read a book on it; that I can tell from your amateurish understanding of evolution. Educate yourself before going any further unless you want to continue to make a fool of yourself.

So far, scientific explanations have replaced religious ones over and over and over again throughout our history. The opposite has never happened. Never have we thought we had a scientific explanation for a phenomena but then realized that it was really supernatural. Until that happens, I will trust the scientific method.
June 15 at 12:13pm

Freddy Davis
You are right, it doesn’t prove there is an supernatural explanation. But it also doesn’t prove that there is a natural explanation – which is exactly my point. You believe it as a matter of religious faith, not as a matter of science.

Actually, I have read numerous books and taken classes in biology which taught evolution as true. Your attack on my knowledge is what is lacking, and pelting me with insults does nothing but demonstrate your own lack of anything substantive to demonstrate your point. Instead of insulting me, you should be giving me scientific proof of your point of view – which you have not done and cannot do.

As for #3, I know the claim. I asked you for the science (and all you do is tell me to read a book). There is no actual science to demonstrate it to be true.

And it is fine for you to trust the scientific method. But until you can answer the four questions I put forth, you are not using the scientific method. You are asserting a philosophical point of view that has no science to back it up.
June 15 at 12:50pm

Adam Birnbaum
Freddy, we understand your claim. What we disagree about is that your basic, unalterable and unassailable assumptions based on your specific religious tradition (how convenient that yours is the only one that happens to be correct!) deserves the same footing as the assumptions behind scientific thinking. Science is as you say a way of understanding the world. It is not the only way, but it is one way, and its assumptions lead to conclusions which we can of course attack and question using science’s own tools. That’s how it works. That suppositions based on religious dogma are not scientific and can’t be reconciled with scientific claims should thus not come as a surprise, in the same way that claims of one religious tradition don’t reconcile themselves with modes of inquiry from other religious traditions. This is not anything new.

The silly “gotcha” questions you’re asking are either things we haven’t yet found a scientific answer for (thus leaving your gods to be gods of the missing pieces, if that’s what you want them to be) or they are questions that, as you frame them, simply have no meaning except in a religious context. Science is actually doing fairly well answering all four of your questions, but you’re dismissing work that you don’t care to see by labeling it “not actual science.” I don’t know what “actual science” is or is not in your book. I rather suspect that it means “work that proves to me personally, Freddy Davis, that my religious beliefs are wrong, but since I will never be convinced of this, good luck dude.” You’re welcome to that if it makes you feel better, I guess.

I have heard other people insist that scientific ways of knowing are “religious.” Unable to bolster your own arguments with any evidence whatsoever, you instead try to knock down science to your level. Many religious traditions have responded to this quandary by backing off of claims concerning the natural world except in the broadest sense. That’s why the Pope and the Dalai Lama can agree that evolution is real without undercutting their own belief systems – to the extent that churches ever made claims about the physical universe, they’ve only managed to embarrass themselves. To the extent that you insist that your religion can or should be used to explain things where its descriptive and predictive powers have long ago been eclipsed by science, you’re not helping yourself. Religion doesn’t explain why we find these fossils or what relationship they have to living things today. Science does.
June 15 at 1:38pm

Kody Kramer
Freddy, I’m going to use your own logic against you and illustrate your glaring logical fallacy. The building you’re in right now, did you see it being built? Likely not. Therefore you can only rely on your presupposition that it was built by human labor and didn’t spontaneously come into being. By your own logic, any evidence which shows that the building was constructed by people is not evidence, nor qualifies as scientifically derived.

The city could show you the building permits. Your logic says that’s not evidence of human construction; the documents could be forged.

The contractor could show you the paystubs of the workers which built the building. Your logic says that’s not evidence of human construction; the contractor could be lying.

A construction worker shows you a picture he took of his coworkers constructing the building. Your logic says that’s not evidence of human construction; the picture could be a computer-generated fake.

Two photos, taken 1 year apart, of the parcel of land which the building is on, shows that it was a vacant lot and then 1 year later there is a building there. Your logic says that’s not evidence of human construction; God could have created the building some time between photographs.

Your logical fallacy dictates that none of those can be considered evidence of human construction, for the simple fact that you yourself did not witness the building’s construction. The only thing those pieces of “evidence” can do is bolster a presupposition that humans made the building; they are not proof of it. You realize how ridiculous this sounds?
June 15 at 2:26pm

Freddy Davis
Adam Birnbaum Actually, Adam, you have completely misspoken. Your basic problem is that you have equated Naturalism with science – and they are not the same. Naturalism is a set of presuppositions about the structure of reality – a philosophical point of view, and a filter through which one interprets data. Science is a methodology. They are simply not the same.

What you are calling my “gotcha questions” are not that at all. It is merely a way of pointing out to you the difference between the naturalistic philosophy that you are evaluating data through, and the methodology one uses to study the natural world. The four questions simply point out that you are not evaluating data when you assert that you can know the answers to them using science as a methodology. Those questions defy that kind of analysis. Your assertions about that are based on your naturalistic presuppositions, not on science. If they were, you could actually show the experiments the demonstrate how your assertions could possibly be true. But all you have done is make assertions. Therefore, when you insist that the entirety of reality can be known using science (for instance, the arguments being made concerning naturalistic evolution), what I am saying is that you are not evaluating based on science at all. You are speculating based on your naturalistic presuppositions – pure and simple.

Your last paragraph is simply meaningless. It does not reflect the truth about the nature of religious traditions, nor is it an accurate statement about how the Christian faith deals with science. The things you wrote there are simply not true.
June 15 at 4:17pm

Freddy Davis
Kody Kramer I have no idea what you are even talking about. What you think is a logical argument against my point of view is a straw man that fails to even be a good one. Your illustration is attempting to equate the building of a house with the existence of the natural universe. It is a false equivalence. As you have pointed out, you can actually demonstrate by various means the reality of the house and the steps to building it. In fact, is it even possible for another person to reproduce it.

That is simply not true with the natural universe. Show me the building permit for the universe. Show me the pay stubs and the group picture of the people who built it. It is not my logic that is flawed, but yours because your illustration is bogus. You do understand the difference, don’t you?
June 15 at 4:26pm

Kody Kramer
Freddy, your mind is capable of realizing your logical fallacy, but your enemy is cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is a REAL thing, and you are putting it on full display with all your comments across these various threads. You agree with me and say, “As you have pointed out, you can actually demonstrate by various means the reality of the house and the steps to building it. In fact, is it even possible for another person to reproduce it.” yet you willfully don’t equate any of my scenarios with evolution because you don’t accept even the most basic concepts of evolution because it destroys your worldview.

You didn’t witness the house being built, yet you are willing to accept the pieces of evidence which show it was. Transitional fossils are one piece of evidence that evolution is real, even though you personally didn’t see it happen. Therefore, how can you accept one while outright dismissing the other, when you observed neither?

To use creationist jargon, hammering a single nail in the roof of a house is a “micro-evolution” in the total evolution within the house’s overall creation. One nail in one 2×4 does not itself make a house, just as one mutation in an ancient species doesn’t instantly make a modern species. The house takes weeks or months of “micro” events to become a “macro” house, just as evolution takes millions of years of “micro” mutations to lead to the different “kinds” (another creationist term) of animals we see. In a lab we can observe with our own eyes “microevolutions” in multiple forms of bacteria and insects, yet your cognitive dissonance dictates that in no way whatsoever is it possible for micro to lead to macro. If you were to observe a team of builders constructing a house, one nail at a time, one board at a time, but then you walked away and didn’t see the job finished, using your logic it is impossible to forecast that those micro steps will lead to a finished structure because you yourself didn’t observe the whole process of construction.
June 15 at 5:18pm

Freddy Davis
Kody Kramer Your evaluation of my understanding of my worldview is sadly mistaken. In fact, worldview training is my expertise. It is you who are so locked into your worldview that you cannot see other possibilities. The reason I don’t accept naturalistic evolution has nothing to do with cognitive dissonance or that it destroys my worldview. The reason I don’t accept it is because there is no actual science to demonstrate that it is true (which is completely essential if you are going to argue for it based on a naturalistic worldview – which you are doing).

Again, your illustration is flawed. A house is not the universe, and your attempt to conflate the existence of a house with the existence of the universe is simply in error. We actually can know the natural steps for building a house and anyone can reproduce it. There are actually no known natural steps for creating our universe. As such, it takes no faith at all to acknowledge that someone built a house. However, it takes a massive amount of religious faith to believe that the universe as we know it came into existence and developed into what now exists based on natural causes. Your assertions are simply not true.

Also, your attempts to equate micro-evolution with a nail and macro-evolution with the existence of the whole house simply do not work. It is a false equivalence. You make all of these illustrative points, but a made up illustration is not science, and there is no known science that can demonstrate to be true the things you are saying. Sorry, but what you are saying is simply not true – and you can’t demonstrate it to be so using the presuppositions of your own worldview beliefs.
June 15 at 5:39pm

Kody Kramer
“The reason I don’t accept evolution is because there is no actual science to demonstrate that it is true.”

I don’t believe humans went to the moon because there is no actual science to demonstrate that it is true.

I don’t believe the earth is a sphere because there is no actual science to demonstrate that it is true.

I don’t believe dinosaurs walked the Earth because there is no actual science to demonstrate that it is true.

I don’t believe gravity exists because there is no actual science to demonstrate that it is true.

Freddy, this is what you sound like.
June 15 at 6:06pm

Kody Kramer
“There are actually no known natural steps for creating our universe.” I see you also outright deny the legitimacy of quantum and astrophysics.
June 15 at 6:21pm

Freddy Davis
So, I guess using quantum and astrophysics, you can explain the origin of the material that makes up the natural universe, the origin of life, the variety of life forms that exist on earth, and the origin of consciousness. I am very interested in you showing me the science from those disciplines that demonstrates how the natural universe in its current form could have come into existence and developed into its current circumstance.

Seriously, you are making your assertions based on naturalistic philosophy, not on science. Prove the presuppositions of Naturalism and you win this argument. But until you can do that, all you have is your faith in the religion of Naturalism.
June 15 at 6:55pm

Jim Alfredson
Just because we don’t know something doesn’t mean “God did it”. Again, this is the god of the gaps argument. You keep repeating it like you’re making a new argument but you’re just repeating the same fallacy.

Just because we can’t explain abiogenesis or how the universe actually came into existence doesn’t mean we explain it away with the supernatural (which is just an infinite regression). It means we keep looking. Maybe we’ll never know. That’s ok.

The things we do know you discount anyway because it makes you uncomfortable and disproves your anachronistic religion. So we’re getting nowhere. Go read a book on modern evolutionary theory, write a peer reviewed paper disproving it, and you’ll have my respect. Otherwise you’re just another theist talking about shit you don’t understand.
June 15 at 7:44pm

Freddy Davis
I actually do believe God created the universe, but interestingly, that is not what I have been arguing – so your accusation that I am trying to promote my religious beliefs is simply false. I am certainly capable of dealing in that arena if there was that need, but that is not what this entire discussion has been about. The original post was about the “truth” of evolutionary theory based on a video that has no science to back it up.

My argument is that the naturalistic worldview presuppositions that naturalistic evolution is built upon are not based on science – they are based on faith (it is a religious point of view). Your inability to explain abiogenesis or how the universe actually came into existence using your own naturalistic presuppositions is solid evidence that you are not dealing with science, but with beliefs that are based on faith. Obviously, you do not even understand the implications of the arguments you are making.

The truth is, I do read a lot of things about modern evolutionary theory. And you know what virtually all of them do … they all hedge their bets because the theory cannot be backed up by any empirical science. The science simply does not exist.

You insult me by calling me “just another theist talking about ____ I don’t understand,” but the fact is, your entire post relates to things you obviously don’t understand, and can’t demonstrate using your own presuppositions. Perhaps you are the one who needs to do a little more research.
June 15 at 8:19pm

Kody Kramer
Sorry, Freddy, I’m not going to respond to your request for evidence to back up my claims. It’s abundantly clear that I could spend two hours posting dozens upon dozens of peer-reviewed, fact based, scientific and philosophic research papers which completely disprove all your logic and points, and you would simply dismiss them because it might mean you have to do something as RADICAL as…gasp…changing your mind in the face of irrefutable evidence. But good luck in trying to publish your religious book, the one with an exploding nuclear bomb on the cover. You don’t seem at all like a person who thinks like a cult leader. *eye roll*. But ya know, what do I know about this whole science thing. It’s not like my scientific work has been published in National Geographic, the Smithsonian, or Forbes. Oh wait, it has been. But again, what do I know…
June 15 at 10:38pm

Jim Alfredson
It’s like talking to a wall.

Let’s try this one more time: that science cannot currently answer certain questions, such as how life actually began, has absolutely NO bearing on the theory of evolution by natural selection. None whatsoever. So I don’t know why you keep bringing it up. Yes, there are things we don’t know. That doesn’t mean what we do know is false.

The theory of evolution is as settled and backed up by as much evidence as the theory of gravity and the electromagnetic theory, to name just two. To claim otherwise is simply ignorant. To equate understanding and accepting the theory of evolution with belief and thus religion is false. I don’t believe in evolution. I understand it and I’m familiar with the myriad of scientific disciplines that uphold it as well as the mountains of empirical evidence that support it and thus I accept it as the best explanation for speciation. As a former Christian, I know exactly what you’re doing. You’re pounding your head against a square peg, trying to mash it into a round hole. The only reason you keep going is that you’ve convinced yourself that evolution isn’t based on science, which of course is ludicrous. You’d know this if you had any genuine curiosity. But you think your interpretation of a re-translated and politically edited 2000 year old collection of myths and fables is the be-all end-all of knowledge.

Good luck with that. The totality of our human knowledge is at your fingertips but rather than educate yourself, you’d rather post on random articles on FB about evolution, claiming you know more than 150 years worth of peer reviewed scientific inquiry, experiments, evidence, and inter-disciplinary study. You claim you read about evolutionary theory but it’s blatantly obvious that either a) you’re a liar or b) you’re reading someone else’s interpretation of it (probably via some creationist website) because your ignorance stands out in your posts like the vestigial leg bones in a whale (evolution joke).

Enjoy your delusions. I’ll not waste anymore time with you. I was once like you and then had the intellectual honesty to admit that I was wrong. Maybe you’ll get there one day.
June 15 at 11:01pm

Freddy Davis
The problem is not simply that there are things you don’t know. The problem is that there is no known way to get at what is not known. The naturalistic assumption is that the variety of life forms on earth came into being by purely natural means. That must be true IF the natural universe is all that exists. However, you don’t know that to be true (and in fact, I can assure you it is not true). In spite of that, you make assertions that it is true, and since that is what you believe (not based on science, but on your philosophical predisposition) you assert it as if it is true.

However, your belief in Naturalism requires that you demonstrate it to be true using science. You have not and cannot. Thus, your belief is not belief based on anything that is proven or provable, it is based on your faith in Naturalism – it is a religious belief.

Now, you can make fun of my religious beliefs all you want, but it does not disprove my beliefs, nor does it make yours true. If you want to be taken seriously, then prove naturalistic evolution using the presuppositions of your own beliefs. Otherwise, you are simply blowing smoke. The truth is, I know what you are doing. You are pounding your head against a square peg, trying to mash it into a round hole. The only reason you keep going is that you’ve convinced yourself that evolution is true based on science, which of course is ludicrous. You’d know this if you had any genuine curiosity.

Once again, your insults about my understanding of evolutionary theory and what I read is ridiculous. Mostly what I read are things evolutionary theoreticians write. It is you who are so wrapped up in your naturalistic religion that you can’t see the flaws in your belief system. It is simply NOT TRUE that naturalistic evolution is settled science. It is the consensus of evolutionary scientists, but that does not make it settled science, and it never will be until you can demonstrate it to be true using your own naturalistic presuppositions. Seemingly you don’t have as much intellectual honesty as you claim.
June 16 at 7:57am

Freddy Davis
Kody Kramer Congratulations on your publications. However, that does not prove that naturalistic evolution is true. The real problem is that your naturalistic interpretive lens is defective. I am actually open to being won over if you can prove it to be true. But you can’t. There is no science in existence that can do that. Thus, you can speculate all you want about the origin and development of life forms on earth using your naturalistic lens and it will continue to be just that – speculation. You don’t need to insult me for pointing that out. All you need to do is demonstrate the truth of your lens. Good luck.

And perhaps you should read my book before you criticize it. You obviously have no idea what it is about.
June 16 at 8:19am

Mathew Kelleher
A 1% uncertainty does not equal a throwing out 100% of the empirical evidence. When someone runs an experiment that disproves Relativity and Quantum Mechanics or Evolution, and the experiment can be reproduced independently, that will be the new standard. As a comparison, claiming divine intervention is problematic as there is no reproducible experiment to prove or disprove the supposition or thesis. The only material you can turn to is The Bible. Unfortunately. I see a lot of opinion in this thread. Is there a reasonable alternative to either evolution or creationism? Can Freddy Davis put one together for us?
June 16 at 6:49pm

Freddy Davis
So, your definition of “reasonable” is acceptance of naturalistic philosophy? Seriously? You require that I demonstrate the reality of God based on naturalistic presuppositions (which is not even a part of Theism), yet you are not willing to demonstrate the reality of Naturalism using naturalistic presuppositions (even though Naturalism requires that standard). That is rich. The problem is, you have set a standard of reproducible experimentation, yet that does not even exist when it comes to proving naturalistic evolution. Your argument is false on its face.
June 16 at 7:00pm

Kody Kramer
“…it never will be [true] until you can demonstrate it to be true using your own naturalistic presuppositions.” You’ve just majorly contradicted yourself. This whole sub-thread, and others in which you’ve participated under the main article, has been people posting what you label as presuppositions and nothing more. And you outright dismissed ALL. OF. THEM. because you said they were merely presuppositions. Now you’re suddenly demanding we must use presuppositions to prove naturalism. You’ve been backed into a corner and now you’re just flailing your arms.

I’ve been so flabbergasted at your completely inability to realize your own logical fallacies that I had my brother-in-law read this entire thread. He has a degree in psychology, philosophy, & sociology and I knew he’d get a kick out of reading it. He says this whole conversation is an exercise in futility. Your reasoning for rejecting the things you do has no basis in reality. Your logic is solidly circular, and even though you claim multiple times that you’re open to accepting proof if it is provided to you, that clearly is a lie. You need to seek counseling immediately from a professional, because who knows how many under-educated or mis-edecuated people you will harm or already have harmed with your flawed logic. The way you think is dangerous to those around you. You’re not just some guy on Facebook who’s casually defending a crazy set of ideas, your philosophy can actually be infectious and dangerous and you need to seek help immediately.
June 17 at 12:53am

Jim Alfredson
I said I was done but I just can’t resist this whopper:

“It is the consensus of evolutionary scientists, but that does not make it settled science…”

Not just “evolutionary scientists”, it is the consensus of multiple disciplines of science including botany, genetics, thermodynamics, physics, astrophysics, cosmology, immunology, germ theory, microbiology, embryology, neuroscience, geomorphology, plate tectonics, paleontology, archaeology, anthropology, nuclear physics, chemistry, and geochronology to name but a few. Any one of those disciplines could’ve thrown a wrench into evolutionary biology… but they didn’t. They actually support it. You literally have to throw away almost all scientific disciplines to not accept evolution. It is most definitely settled science.

If evolution were false, we wouldn’t even be having this virtual conversation. The very computer you’re using to type your nonsense wouldn’t exist because our understanding of the world would be so broken, so faulty.

The rest of your recent posts is just the same crap you’ve been spewing the entire thread, re-stated yet again, as if that makes it any more true than it was in all the posts before. You’re just talking in circles. You’re stuck in the theistic loop of not being able to parse reality because it conflicts with your beliefs. The cognitive dissonance must be hellish.

Over and over again in all these posts (not just this sub-thread but pretty much every sub-thread under this article), you’ve just dismissed all the evidence presented without actually presenting any of your own and harped on about “real science”, as if you know what that is. You are an intellectual charlatan and the worst kind of liar; the kind that lies to himself. You don’t understand evolution at all, you don’t understand science, and you certainly have no evidence of your claims of the supernatural…. none… nothing. Until you do, the claims you make on behalf of your religious belief system are nothing more than wishful thinking.
June 17 at 2:03am

Martin Griffin
“Science belongs only in the realm of the natural, which is, by definition, outside of the natural”
I’m sorry Freddy, but could you maybe help out by explaining a little how the “realm of the natural” exists only outside the realm of the natural, that is, itself?
June 17 at 3:29am

Robert Mirmow
After reading this, once again I am so glad I escaped the cognitive dissonance of religion.
June 17 at 5:27am

Freddy Davis
But you haven’t. Naturalism is a religion – whether you realize it or not.
June 17 at 8:45am

Freddy Davis
Kody Kramer You seem to not understand what you are arguing. The reason I demanded that you use your own presuppositions to prove your point of view is simply to demonstrate to you that you cannot do it. Your naturalistic point of view assumes reality is structured in a particular way and you demand that everyone else agree to it, yet you can’t demonstrate it to be true based on your own beliefs. It is you who need to do a little research to understand your own naturalistic faith. The only one with logical fallacies is yourself.

As for your brother-in-law, I definitely understand where he is coming from. I also have a degree in a social science and understand why he would say my reasoning has no basis in reality. That is because the lens he is using to evaluate reality is Naturalism – same as yours. But he runs into the same problem you do. You see, the social sciences try to use the scientific method to study things that science can’t study. It has to make evaluations about people’s motives (now and throughout history) that science simply can’t deal with. It treats human beings as if they were mechanical objects – which they are not. His evaluation of me is simply in error because the tool he is using to evaluate my beliefs and motives is simply flawed.

As for counseling, I do not need it, nor do I think you do – yet. However, if you persist in your delusion that naturalistic philosophy is provable by science, there may come a day.
June 17 at 8:58am

Freddy Davis
Jim Alfredson Your assertion that a person would have to throw away all science to dismiss naturalistic evolutionary theory is simply false. The fact that people in various scientific disciplines believe that the theory of evolution is true does not directly correlate to whether or not the theory is actually true. In fact, it is very possible for them to do science in their disciplines, even very good science, and it not prove the truth of the theory. I don’t understand why you think that fact makes your point.

The truth is, research in many of those disciplines have thrown a monkey-wrench into the theory of naturalistic evolution, but believers persist in believing it anyway (go figure). Naturalistic evolution is no more settled science than is abiogenesis. People who believe in that theory do so because of their religious beliefs, not because of experimental science.

Your example of the computer is crazy talk. The development of the computer is in no way affected by whether or not the theory of evolution is true. You are making some kind of philosophical assumption on this that is simply not true on its face.

Actually, my reasoning is quite sound. My point has not been to promote Theism (though I do believe a form of that), but to demonstrate the fallacy of Naturalism. I am more than happy to share my beliefs, but that is not what this conversation has been about. You want reasons a naturalistic approach to evolution is flawed? Let me list just a few.
1. Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information.
2. The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution.
3. The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand “tree of life.”
4. The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code and the origin of life.
5. The inability of biology to explain the origin of complex biological organisms.
And I could go on and on.

In spite of your insults and taunts, the fact is, all of your arguments for the viability of naturalistic evolution are based on your naturalistic philosophy, not on actual experimental science. If you really want to prove your point, then prove the viability of naturalistic presuppositions. At that point you win. Until then, you have nothing to offer but your naturalistic religious beliefs about the subject. I am not lying to myself when it comes to what I believe. You, on the other hand, you show a massive lack of understanding of your own beliefs and where that fits into the spectrum of belief possibilities. Perhaps you are the one who needs to do a little more study.
June 17 at 9:28am

Freddy Davis
Martin Griffin I went back through to find where I wrote something like that and couldn’t find it. If I misspoke that way, then my apologies.

I did find, though where I wrote this: You seem not to understand what I have written. I have not included science as a part of defining anything related to the supernatural. What I have said is that there is a part of reality that transcends the natural – and natural science is not a viable methodology for doing study related to that arena.

Your attempt at “gotcha” is not really very meaningful.
June 17 at 9:41am

Jim Alfredson
“Your assertion that a person would have to throw away all science to dismiss naturalistic evolutionary theory is simply false.”

Wrong. The theory of evolution is built upon the same scientific methodology that has produced everything else that you take for granted; human flight, computers, modern plumbing, agriculture, medicine, etc. That’s what you fundamentalists don’t want to admit. You want to think that evolution is some red-headed stepchild of actual science, off by itself in a corner somewhere. It is not. It is intimately entwined with all of science.

“The fact that people in various scientific disciplines believe that the theory of evolution is true does not directly correlate to whether or not the theory is actually true.”

That’s not what I said. I said that evolution is buttressed by all those other disciplines. Discoveries in those disciplines have contributed to the evidence for evolution. The biggest example is genetics. The discovery of genetics could’ve done away with evolution in one fell swoop. Instead, it completely supports it.

You’d have to throw away all those other disciplines in order to throw away evolution.

“The truth is, research in many of those disciplines have thrown a monkey-wrench into the theory of naturalistic evolution…”

This is simply wrong.

“Naturalistic evolution is no more settled science than is abiogenesis.”

Wrong again.

“People who believe in that theory do so because of their religious beliefs, not because of experimental science.”

Wrong.

“The development of the computer is in no way affected by whether or not the theory of evolution is true. ”

Wrong. The same methodology allowed the discovery of both evolution by natural selection and the modern theories of electromagnetism, chemistry, material sciences, and computer science. If evolution is false then the methodology that produced it is also false and thus everything we’ve discovered using that methodology would be suspect / false.

“Actually, my reasoning is quite sound. ”

Wrong. Your reasoning is full of selection bias, cognitive dissonance, contradiction, fallacies, circular reasoning, and ignorance. I and many others have pointed this out to you but you continue to ignore it.

“You want reasons a naturalistic approach to evolution is flawed? Let me list just a few.
1. Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information.”

Wrong.

“2. The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution.”

So wrong as to be laughable. Careful, Freddy. Your Dunning-Kruger is showing.

“3. The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand “tree of life.”

Wrong.

“4. The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code and the origin of life.”

While we don’t have solid answers, lots of research is being conducted in this field. Here’s some of the latest: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

Regardless, as I’ve already pointed out numerous times, our current (and most likely temporary) inability to explain abiogenesis does not affect our understanding of evolution. They are two different things. So wrong again.

“5. The inability of biology to explain the origin of complex biological organisms.”

Wrong. That’s exactly what evolution does. Are you really this dense?

“And I could go on and on.”

Oh, I’m sure you could. And you’d continue to show your blatant ignorance and inability to grasp simple concepts. To wit:

“all of your arguments for the viability of naturalistic evolution are based on your naturalistic philosophy, not on actual experimental science.”

Wrong again.

“You, on the other hand, you show a massive lack of understanding of your own beliefs and where that fits into the spectrum of belief possibilities.”

And (surprise) you’re wrong again. It’s not a belief system. It’s an understanding of the scientific method, an understanding of the theory itself, and knowledge of all the research, evidence, and empirical data that backs it up. This understanding is something you obviously lack, despite your claims to the contrary. You really have no idea what you’re talking about. Your arguments are standard creationism fare, long ago debunked. You continue to make a false equivalency in order to bolster your own archaic beliefs, attempting to place evolutionary theory and your religious beliefs on the same level, treating them as two opposing belief systems. But they are not; you don’t even understand what you’re arguing against.

But hey, keep on believing in 700 year old men putting all the earth’s creatures on a boat, talking snakes, and a divine Jewish zombie who will return (some day… just keep waiting). Because that’s rational. [/sarcasm]

Just for shits and giggles, what books have you read on evolutionary theory?

I bet you haven’t (and won’t) read this one:

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True…/dp/0143116649/

Have you even cracked The Origin of the Species?
Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries
The transition from the RNA to the DNA world was a major event in the history of life. The invention of DNA required the appearance of enzymatic activities for both synthesis of DNA precursors, retro-transcription of RNA templates and replication of singleand double-stranded DNA molecules. Recent da…
NCBI.NLM.NIH.GOV
June 17 at 2:23pm

Freddy Davis
You are hilarious, and so much for being done, huh? So, you think that just saying my answers are “wrong” makes them actually wrong and you right? That is a good one. You realize, don’t you, that it is not your insults that will make my position wrong? You do know, right, that the only way you can justify your beliefs is to demonstrate that Naturalism is true using naturalistic presuppositions?

When you begin with a flawed premise, you typically end up with flawed outcomes – as you constantly did in your comments. Let me correct you a a couple of things.
1. The fact that evolutionary scientists attempt to use the same scientific methodology that is used in other fields of science is absolutely meaningless. The use of a particular methodology in study says absolutely nothing about how the things being studied actually work. Every point you have made using that argument is simply bogus.
2. Evolution is only buttressed by the other disciplines if they can demonstrate the viability of naturalistic presuppositions – which they do not. Specifically, you must show, using experimental science: a) where the material that makes up the natural universe originated, b) how life originated, c) how the variety of life forms that now exist came into being, and, d) how consciousness originated. Science is not even close to any of these (in spite of your assertion to the contrary). The fact that you believe we will one day know how it all works is a matter of faith, not of science. It is actually your reasoning that is full of selection bias, cognitive dissonance, contradiction, fallacies, circular reasoning, and ignorance, not mine. I continue to point this out to you but you still don’t seem to grasp the distinction between science (which is the use of a particular methodology) and naturalistic philosophy (which is a belief system).
3. It is so fascinating to repeatedly get one particular answer to my objections. You said, “While we don’t have solid answers, lots of research is being conducted in this field.” Seriously? Do you not recognize that an answer like that is a religious answer based on your belief that a naturalistic worldview is true, in spite of the fact that science really does not have those answers?
4. Naturalism is a belief system and your objection to me pointing that out is a bit humorous. Science is a methodology, and it doesn’t care who uses it. Perhaps you don’t realize that Christians also believe in the use of the scientific method. We believe in it because we believe that the natural universe is an objectively real entity that operates on the basis of fixed natural laws. It is just that we don’t, as you do based on your faith, believe that that is all there is.

I actually have read Darwin, Dawkins, Gould and others. I also read contemporary articles on various topics related to evolution. And you know what I find in virtually everything I read … the authors ALWAYS hedge their bets (as even you did in your most recent post) because naturalistic evolution does not yield the kind of scientific proof that allows them to KNOW that what they are saying is true.

Now, let me ask you a question. What have you read that explains the difference between experimental science and philosophical beliefs? You constantly conflate Naturalism with science and they are simply not the same. Until you understand this, you will continue to make the same mistakes you have been making already.
June 17 at 5:50pm

Kody Kramer
We’ve been playing defense with you for far too long, Freddy. Prove your religious beliefs are the correct religious beliefs, compared to all other religious options.
June 17 at 8:29pm

Freddy Davis
Are you serious? Every response of mine has been about the initial video that was posted. Now you want to completely change the subject from talking about evolution and make it about other religious beliefs and about me? Really? That is not a legit request. I am perfectly capable of schooling you on comparative religions, but it would be very rude to hijack this venue to do that.

But more to the point, why do you insist that I justify my faith when you have steadfastly refused to justify yours – or even acknowledge that your naturalistic beliefs are, in actuality, a faith point of view? Not a single person, including you, has yet to show how naturalistic presuppositions can possibly be true – and in order for naturalistic evolution to be true, the beliefs of Naturalism supporting it must also be true. All I get are bob and weave. Seriously?
June 18 at 8:25am

Rob Fersch
Sorry Freddy, this is based directly on extensive transitional fossil evidence as well as morphological and biographical evidence. Time for you to get out of the 18th century.
June 20 at 2:18pm

Freddy Davis
Rob Fersch Assuming, of course, that your naturalistic interpretation of the evidence is actually a legitimate interpretation. You are using a naturalistic lens to interpret the evidence, not actual observation or experimental science. Prove Naturalism is true and you may have a case. Until then, you assertion is nothing more than religious speculation based on naturalistic philosophy. Time for you to get out of your religion and use some actual science.
June 20 at 2:29pm

Frank Aigner
The fossil record is a good bit more complete than you suggest. And, as far as theory goes, flight involves theory, yet airplanes fly.
June 22 at 9:52pm

Freddy Davis
Frank Aigner You don’t seem to understand my comments in the conversation.
1. The completeness of the fossil record is totally irrelevant. Your implication seems to be that the fossil record itself is the determining factor for whether or not naturalistic evolution is true. That is simply a false assumption. Fossils are data, not experiments, and data has to be interpreted through some interpretive lens. A naturalistic lens cannot be demonstrated to be true using its own presuppositions. Your assertion on this point is, simply, meaningless.
2. You seem to think that I believe the scientific method, and that the use of theories as a tool for discovery, is not valid. Your assumption is false. Your comment about flight involving theory doesn’t even make any sense.
June 23 at 7:37am

Baird Brutscher (Initial Posting)
Things like fossils and the fact there are vestigial legs in modern whales make me uncomfortable, therefore I’m going with a sky-person did it. Much like any post remotely about ancient chinese firearms is a great chance for me to state my second amendment rights entitle me to a bazooka.
June 12 at 1:16pm

Misty Chorlton
If I can’t make sense of it, it’s ridiculous that anyone else could!
June 13 at 11:50am

Clayton Reed
Clearly it was the sky-person’s arch nemesis – a fiery pit dwelling winged-goat man – planting fake bones to fool us into believing observable reality. Duh.
June 15 at 12:22am

Michael Kabik
Read Stephen J. Gould’s essay on the evolution of whales and forget about magic your better off.
June 16 at 5:30pm

Ron Kent Hooper
You are a complete idiot nit wit
June 19 at 10:17pm

Henry Peihong Tsai (Initial Posting)
This goes on to show that between the initial phase of cute furry land mammal and the final phase of cute little flippy dolphin, whale evolution is full of nightmare fuel transitional forms.
June 7 at 1:00pm

Mike Funk (Initial Posting)
Over a 50 million year time period, there should be thousands, if not millions of transitional fossils to back up this “science”, correct? Each fossil showing slight changes in the evolutionary process, right? Produce the transitional fossils that have been collected, and prove the theory of evolution correct, and those that “don’t understand science” incorrect. If that can’t be done, then it must be admitted that evolution is based on belief, and is not “scientific”.
June 12 at 2:54pm

Adam Birnbaum
I suggest you look into the concept of punctuated equilibrium. The fact that changes happened over time doesn’t mean they happened smoothly or at a consistent rate. We find fossil evidence of every (or nearly every) transitional form. When you demand that people “prove” things it makes me wonder what standard you’re applying to “proof.” It also makes me wonder how you choose to explain the transitional forms paleontologists have found.
June 13 at 12:13pm

Noah Janes
your doubt is unreasonable
June 13 at 2:24pm

Paul Cuzzort
Mike, fossils are extremely rare esp when you go back millions of years.
June 14 at 11:24am

Freddy Davis
Adam Birnbaum Just more speculation. Your approach is not based on science, it is based on naturalistic presuppositions. Prove the presuppositions and you have something. Until then, it is pure speculation.
June 14 at 1:48pm

Lyle Tipple
Might take a look at this page… http://www.transitionalfossils.com/
(A few) transitional fossils
A partial list of transitional fossils.
TRANSITIONALFOSSILS.COM
June 14 at 2:57pm

David Chace
What percentage of creatures actually get fossilized, and what percentage of fossils are ever discovered before erosion wipes them out? These numbers are key to the “relative absence of transitional forms” argument.
June 15 at 3:43am

Michael Isaacson
So…until those intermediate fossils are found to prove evolution, the correct default position is to go with the happy, bearded Guy and his winged cohorts?
June 15 at 7:40am

Joe Wood
You picked a really bad group of organisms to make that argument about Mike. Our understanding of whale evolution has increased tremendously in the last few years and we now have a very good fossil record showing the transition. As some have pointed out, we are at the mercy of the fossil record and what organisms were preserved. In this case, because these animals lived in or near water, we have a better record than most purely terrestrial vertebrates. Essentially you brought a knife to a gunfight. Making an argument of this type for this particular vertebrate group only demonstrates your ignorance.

More importantly, your argument boils down to “I have not bothered to look at the evidence or if I did I chose to ignore it, therefore there is no evidence”.
June 15 at 11:18am

Kody Kramer
You could show 10,000 transitional fossils, but all you’d hear from the deniers/skeptics of evolution would be, “Because you lack a transitional fossil between form 9,999 and form 10,000, there is no proof of evolution.”
June 15 at 2:51pm

Freddy Davis
You still don’t seem to realize that the problem is not transitional fossils. The problem is that naturalistic evolution is not a scientific pursuit, it is a religious one. The presuppositions of Naturalism (which are the very basis for the pursuit of that theory) cannot even live up to their own requirements. It is the naturalistic superstructure that is flawed, and with it, any theory that depends upon it falls. Prove naturalistic philosophy to be true using naturalistic presuppositions and you win this argument – but you can’t.
June 16 at 7:30pm

Kevin Goodall
Exactly Mike.
June 17 at 2:00am

Christopher Farino
You are confused about the phrase Theory of Evolution. Scientific Theory isn’t a maybe, it has been proven as fact as far as science can go and it is 100% undisputed. Nobody can see it, so the term Scientific Theory is used. Gravity is Scientific Theory.
June 17 at 2:34pm

Drew Smith
All science is necessarily based upon explanatory naturalism. Otherwise, we might just as well believe that everything that exists today was magically poofed into existence 5 minutes ago, including our memories of a past that never took place. Science cannot be based on magic, nor on religious belief. Science requires naturalistic presuppositions in order to work.
June 17 at 5:28pm

Mark Otterbourg
It evolved one whole phase while riding on Noah’s ark. Walked on, swam off…
June 17 at 7:06pm

Michael Kabik
Freddy Davis to quote Trumo,,,…………sad
June 18 at 7:58am

Rob Fersch
This whole reconstruction is based off of known transitional fossils between land animals and whales. Time to join the 19th century, Mike.
June 20 at 2:20pm

Freddy Davis
Rob Fersch Actually, it is not. It is based on a philosophical belief that Naturalism is true, but there is no actual empirical science to back it up.
June 20 at 3:30pm

Michael Kabik (Initial Posting)
All you MAGICAL thinkers out there need read something other than a book full of magical nonsense. The Buddha says “when the student is ready the teacher arrives” and you folks are living the reasoning of a children. Who are often saved by nasty science. What has God done for the human race?? War death murder intolerance comes to mind. Now what about science? Cars, building , medicine, crops………….do I need to go on????
June 16 at 5:17pm

Scott Rhodes (Initial Posting)
It is also terrible science. Science deals with observable, repeatable events. Evolution does neither of these. I thought I had taught you better than this young lady:)
June 10 at 7:06pm

Freddy Mappin
science uses evidence to support hypotheses . Many things occur over time frame much to long to be observed , we use evidence to draw conclusions about what has occurred. Your definition of science being only things that a human can observe is much to narrow, although not incorrect . A good analogy would be , you walk into a room and see a dead man with a knife in his back. You look over the room and find evidence of a struggle. Do you need to actually see the murder to figure out that a murder has taken place? Or can the evidence in the room provide enough evidence to warrant a reasonable hypothesis of what has occurred?
June 13 at 8:39am

Freddy Davis
Evidence is, indeed, important, but your example does not correspond very well with the so called “evidence” for naturalistic evolution. When dealing with the concept of macro evolution, there is no known science that can show that it is even possible.
June 13 at 10:07am

Adam Birnbaum
don’t know what you mean when you say “no known science.” There are many, many transitional forms (like Basilosaurus cetoides) which scientists have identified in the branch of the evolutionary tree leading down to modern whales, including animals like Dorudon atrox which retained vestigial rear legs before losing them entirely. When you say it’s “not even possible” you’re doing absolutely nothing to explain these many many transitional forms leading directly to what we observe today.
June 13 at 12:22pm

Paul Cuzzort
We can observe evolution on a micro scale. If we throw out all science because we cant observe it we would have to rewrite quantum physics.
June 14 at 11:23am

Freddy Davis
There are no forms that can be demonstrated, using actual science, that can be classified as transitional forms. The identifications using the evolutionary tree are not based on science, they are based on the philosophical presuppositions of Naturalism. What is not demonstrated is that the “evolutionary tree” is, itself, a valid way of categorizing the variety of life forms that exist or have existed.

As for what we can or cannot observe, an approach to doing science that throws out science can allow for anyone to make up anything. You are advocating that macro-evolution should be believed just because you say so, not because there is any actual science to back it up. I don’t think so.
June 14 at 1:46pm

Lyle Tipple
http://www.transitionalfossils.com/
(A few) transitional fossils
A partial list of transitional fossils.
TRANSITIONALFOSSILS.COM
June 14 at 2:59pm

Freddy Mappin
The better question Freddy Davis is what evidence would need to be found for you to believe in evolution? We could literally sit here and list thousands of examples that together builds a strong case for evolution. But the real question is what would you need to see to change your Mind?
June 14 at 3:08pm

Joe Wood
The answer Freddy Mappin is “none”. No amount of evidence would convince him. We could show him all of the fossil evidence we wanted (not to mention the molecular data as Cetartiodactyla is one of the most well-supported molecular clades) and he would ignore it because it does not fit his biases. He talks about “actual science” but he doesn’t know what science is.
June 15 at 11:21am

Freddy Davis
Joe Wood Actually, that is not true. You don’t seem to realize that fossils are data, not scientific proof. All data, no matter the type, has to be interpreted through some interpretive lens. If the lens is defective, the result is defective. Naturalistic evolution is an interpretive lens that requires demonstration using science. The only problem is, there is no actual science that can be performed to show it to be true. It seems you are the one who does not know what science is. You are equating science with naturalistic philosophy and that is simply false.

There is evidence that could convince me. Demonstrate actual macro-evolutionary development using real science and I will believe it. But until you can you can show, using your own naturalistic presuppositions, that naturalistic evolution is possible, I will continue to point out the religious nature of your assertions.
June 16 at 8:07am

Joe Wood
For someone who has a gross misunderstanding (possibly purposeful but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt) of the philosophy of science you sure do like to condescend to people don’t you? You keep using the phrase “real science”. Since you are the one who wants to overturn one of the most well supported ideas in science the ball is in your court. You need to present exactly what sort of evidence would convince you of the fact of evolution. So far all you’ve done is handwave the fossil record away. You also need to present a plausible mechanism that explains the fossil and molecular evidence better than biological evolution. I won’t hold my breath because I suspect your explanation is “godditit”.
June 16 at 10:14am

Freddy Davis
Actually, I have already answered that question in another string, but I will share it special for you again. The problem is, you are conflating Naturalism with science and they are not the same. What I would have to see is experimental evidence that naturalistic evolution is even possible. That would require that you demonstrate that the presuppositions of Naturalism are true using the requirements of the worldview position itself. So, using experimental science, demonstrate: 1) the origin of the materials that make up the natural universe, 2) the origin of life, 3) the biological mechanism that allows for macro-evolution, and 4) the origin of consciousness. You see, you believe that all of these things have natural origins not because there is any science to back them up, but because you believe, by faith, in naturalistic philosophy (which is a religious point of view).

BTW, I have not done anything to the fossil record. What I have done is handwave the naturalistic lens through which you evaluate the fossil record. It is your underlying beliefs about how to evaluate reality that I question, not the things that can actually be demonstrated using the scientific method. See, you could have held your breath after all.
June 16 at 7:23pm

Christopher Farino
Wow that is a stupid statement. Scientific Theory is fact.
June 17 at 2:35pm

Michael Kabik
Scott you are very wrong. Talk to a scientist or teacher. READ A BOOK
June 18 at 7:59am

Ron Sammonds Jr. (Initial Posting)
The terms micro-evolution and macro–evolution are inventions of creationists that they think enable them to accept smaller, more obvious evolutionary adaptations and deny so-called species level evolution. These labels are a distinction without much difference and are akin to saying that an animal and its progeny can travel a small distance but not a large one. Well, that depends on how much time is available and the incentive and individual ability to move. Earthworms and plants can cross continents given sufficient time. It’s a creationist’s god-of-the-gaps argument that has zero validity.

The hoary old claim that no transitional forms have been observed in the fossil record is a lie. 158 years ago when Darwin published his first edition of Origins, the argument carried a bit more weight, but even then not much. Since then, many thousands more such fossils have been found and there is much other evidence (radiographic, genetic, etc) supporting the modern Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and much has been discovered that Darwin never knew. But his original theory has stood up remarkably well. Actually, all life forms including us are transitional from what came before to what follows, excepting of course when such forms are dead ends individually or generally. There are no shop specifications to which nature adheres for a standard human, oak tree, blue whale, syphilis bacterium, or anything else.

The dispute between science and religion is at the extreme a fundamental disagreement between people willing to see the universe as it is, as best they can determine its workings through research leading to conjecture vetted by further research and those who are determined to see the universe as they wish it to be, regardless of any contradictory evidence.

Science is not truth, but it is a search for truth. Theory that cannot be immediately verified or falsified is mostly based on collaboration and consensus among knowledgeable folks. The opinions of less knowledgeable folks regarding any particular subject rightly should and do carry less weight. Just because someone has an ignorant opinion about something doesn’t mean that others are obligated to listen to him and consider his point of view.

Of course scientists have faith in their methods and in their colleagues; without some faith in the integrity and skill of fellows, no knowledge worker, scientist or otherwise, would learn from anything other than his own efforts. But such scientific faith is not blind; sometimes that faith is disappointed by error or even fraud, but the scientific method is robust and errors are eventually discovered and corrected.
June 14 at 4:20pm

Freddy Davis
The problem is, in spite of your attempt to eliminate a distinction between micro and macro evolution, macro evolution has no science to back it up. There is no known biological mechanism that can make it happen. It is a philosophical point of view looking for a methodology to support it, and there simply is no scientific support.
June 14 at 9:04pm

Joe Wood
As I pointed out above, your argument is “I have not bothered to look at the evidence/I don’t understand the evidence, therefore there is no evidence. Anyone with the most rudimentary understanding of logic will see that this is a poor argument. If you want to attempt to refute the evidence for this particular group’s evolution, please go ahead. So far you haven’t made any attempt to do that.
June 15 at 11:29am

Joe Wood
Also thank you Ron for your well written response. I have never heard a practicing evolutionary biologist talk about micro and macro evolution. Those are made up terms and if you used them in any lab I have ever worked in you would get a lot of funny looks. Using those terms is like wearing a t-shirt that says “I am ignorant of this topic”.
June 15 at 11:33am

Freddy Davis
And you will never hear an evolutionary biologist talk about macro-evolution because they deny that there is any distinction to be made – all the while, not having any experimental evidence that the biological mechanisms necessary to create that level of evolution even exists. The argument is always that we can see micro-evolution, and over a long enough period, that process will continue and macro changes will occur. OK, then where is the science? There is NONE!

You criticize me for not looking at the evidence and you go off and simply make things up out of whole cloth. It is not my logic that is bad, it is yours. You are conflating science with naturalistic philosophy and don’t even know it.
June 16 at 7:08pm

G Chris Larson (Initial Posting)
It looks possible in animation, but when you consider that we have no intermediate fossils at all and the sheer number of mutations that it would take to do the complete transformation it is statistically impossible.
June 13 at 5:04pm

Joe Wood
You realize that this animation is based on the extremely well documented fossil record for whales right? There are vertebrate clades where you might be able to make the case that the hypothetical transitional series is not well supported by the fossil record but that is patently false for this group. That you have made that argument on this post shows you have no idea what you are talking about and have not bothered to investigate the evidence.
June 15 at 11:24am

G Chris Larson
Joe Do you know how mutations take place? Have you got any idea of how many mutations are represented in this animation? Proteins are made of amino acids (the smallest being about 150 aminos the larger ones into the thousands) each amino is coded by three of four codons in the DNA. if the protein doesn’t fold its useless. so 450 codons in the smallest protein. If you know statistics then you can figure what the odds of getting just the right letter in just the right place for a viable mutation. Don’t forget that half of the aminos are right handed and won’t work. Smarter people than I have doen the calcualtions and there is not really enough time in the history of the universe to make one viable mutation let alone the hundreds needed for this transition. As for your claim that this transition is well supported in the fossil record, there are 3 or 4 species that “look” like they are transition but the Dna shows that they are not.
June 15 at 12:12pm

Joe Wood
Talking down to me isn’t going to help your case. You probably know this but for others reading this thread, the argument you are making is about over 40 years old yet people like you have been trotting it out ever since. Your assumption is that all mutations are deleterious. This just isn’t true. The vast majority of mutations are in one nucleotide in the codon. Many of these result in no change at all. Some, of course, are deleterious. Many result in a change of a single amino acid, resulting in a slightly different, but still functional protein. Your argument is disproven by sequencing proteins from similar organisms. If your thesis were correct, all protein sequences would be perfectly conserved, even in distantly related organisms. The opposite is true. We see large differences in amino acid sequence even in closely related organisms. The more distantly related, the more sequence difference we see. A good example is myoglobin in mammals. This observation is consistent with evolution by natural selection. Your argument also assumes that selection doesn’t happen, which is you ignoring an important part of the science because it is inconvenient to you. Adaptive traits are conserved while maladaptive traits are discarded. This produces the evolution of sophisticated structures in remarkably short time spans (geologically speaking). In the 1980s, Richard Hardison wrote a computer program that used an evolutionary model that, starting with a randomly generated string of letters, produced the phrase “TOBEORNOTTOBE” in, on average, 336 iterations, or about 90 seconds. It could produce the entirety or Hamlet in just four and a half days. Just because you like the argument and haven’t bothered to honestly assess the counterarguments doesn’t mean you get to keep using it without people calling you out on it.
June 15 at 2:23pm

Joe Wood
Also “DNA shows” the exact opposite. The molecular data is remarkably consistent with the morphological data for whales. Again, just because you choose to ignore it does not make it any less correct.
June 15 at 2:27pm

G Chris Larson
I am sorry if it sounded like I was talking down to you. At least I didn’t tell you that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You should check out Douglas Axe’s research. It shows that viable mutations are extremely rare. It’s nice that someone can write a computer program that moves towArds a goal but evolution is unguided. That a program can be written to reach a target actually supports the theory of intelligent design rather than unguided evolution. And you still have not addressed the statistical impossibility of unguided mutations to form new functional proteins or the impossibility of life or even one functional protein to form before life. All the computer programs designed to disprove evolution are DESIGNED. you obviously have read some on this, but try some books like “Darwin’s Dilemma” or “Signature in the Cell”. I know they don’t agree with your position, but they have been positively peer reviewed (by evolutionists of all people). It does all our brains good to listen to intelligently presented opposing views.
June 15 at 10:37pm

Joe Wood
I have read both of those books in addition to many others like “Darwin on Trial”. They all sit on a shelf in my living room alongside books like “Mesozoic Mammals of North America” and “Transitional Forms in Vertebrate Evolution”. The ones you mention have not met peer review (not in the way that phrase is typically used in the scientific community). I do not disagree with them because they do not support my position. I disagree with them because they do not explain the evidence better than evolutionary biology. Do you not understand the irony that you accuse me of motivated reasoning yet you are the one who disregards the over 160 years of evidence for biological evolution because it does not fit your religious views?
June 16 at 10:20am

Joe Wood
And again, you willfully disregard an important part of my argument just because it is inconvenient. You keep saying natural selection is an unguided process. It is true it is not guided by any deity (very obvious this is your preferred guess) but natural selection is guided in the sense that deleterious mutations are discarded while adaptive mutations are conserved. Again though, we can argue about computer models all day but it doesn’t really matter. You are using that argument to avoid having to explain the evidence for evolution from the fossil record and molecular data.
June 16 at 10:24am

Freddy Davis
Interesting theory, Joe, but there is no actual science to back up your claim. You are still conflating naturalistic philosophy and science and they simply are not the same.
June 16 at 7:10pm

G Chris Larson
160 years have failed Darwin. No transition fossils, Cambrian explosion still unexplained, molecular biology and information science have shown that the DNA mechanism for evolution cannot work, geologic column obviously laid down by water in a short time. And evolution science giving up completely on origins.
June 16 at 8:03pm

Michael Kabik
read a book by an expert like Gould. I’m saddened at the ignorance out there about science and evolution.
June 18 at 8:03am

Kymron DeCesare (Initial Posting)
I have always found it amazing that whales chose to leave land and re-adapt to the ocean, and in a manner in equilibrium with their environment.
June 13 at 8:28pm

Michael Kabik
it is not a choice
June 18 at 8:03am

Annie Grieshop (Initial Posting)
I’d heard of the “hooved wolves” that were the oldest ancestors of the whales, but I never knew what they were. Pakicetus! Thanks!
June 14 at 5:01pm

Christian Paul
Stock Annie — “hoofed wolves” actually refers to mesonychids, which were thought to be ancestral to whales until new evidence became available. Pakicetus is not a mesonychid, but shares their unusual crenate teeth — and hopefully continued research will indicate why.
June 16 at 12:37pm

Annie Grieshop
Ah, thanks for yet more info, Christian! I was primarily caught by the concept of a “hoofed” wolf (which pakicetus obviously is not, although I see the reason for the description), and now I need to learn more. Hurrah!
June 16 at 12:51pm

Michael Ktuf Bagby (Initial Posting)
Slate? Please! This is NOT mind blowing. We’ve see these for decades now. They are effective ways of showing evolution but this one is HARDLY MIND BLOWING. Do you really have to rely on stupid CLICK BAIT phraseology to get people to click?
June 7 at 2:05pm

Joe Wood
I share your concern about click bait headlines in some sense but you have to realize that while you or I might be familiar with this, many people are not and to them whale evolution might be truly mind blowing. I remember being fascinated by this when the first Pakicetus fossils were just coming to light. Please try to keep and open mind and not trample other’s wonder at this stuff. As you can see by this thread, we need more of this kind of thing out in the world to inspire curiosity. We are all in this together man.
June 15 at 2:29pm

Bob Foster (Initial Posting)
I found it distracting and extraneous when it ran backward in the second half, like he was showing off his animation instead of telling a story.
June 17 at 3:04am

Kirby Wagner (Initial Posting)
that’s a bunch of stupidity rolled into a lie half baked and plopped out without care or intelligent thought.. :'( I want my minute back..
June 14 at 7:04pm

Christopher Farino
or it is fact and it hurts you itty bitty little mind.
June 17 at 2:36pm

Ron Kent Hooper (Initial Posting)
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution …
https://en.wikipedia.org/…/The_Greatest_Show_on_Earth:_The……See More
June 19 at 10:19pm

Bill Cramer (Initial Posting)
Pretty cool way to see it. Here’s the video on You tube without commercials…

Whalevolution: Time Lapse
When does a whale become a whale? A sample animation (short version) for a…
YOUTUBE.COM
June 10 at 9:55am

Kregg Miller (Initial Posting)
…and all of this by thousands – if not millions – of accidental un-purposed mutations that serendipitously created something from nothing!
June 10 at 9:57am

Michael Kabik (Initial Posting)
as the environment alters over millions of years, those genetic mistakes that improve the chances of the new over the old to survive take root. So………..simply put ……creation is built on mistakes….no mistakes no change
June 14 at 5:21pm

Freddy Davis
There is no evidence whatsoever that mistakes create positive changes. Mistakes kill organisms. Desperate theory.
June 14 at 9:06pm

Michael Kabik
wrong
June 14 at 9:49pm

Michael Kabik
argue with Gould or Dawkins or my best friend who worked with 2 Nobel winners in genetics and sequenced Chron’s Disease and personally sequenced the most aggressive form of cancer on the planet.. Discussion over
June 14 at 9:53pm

Michael Kabik
Keep God out of science and I’ll stay away from church fair enough ?
June 14 at 9:56pm

Freddy Davis
Who has put God in science? I have not even mentioned God. What I have mentioned is that what you are asserting is not science, it is naturalistic philosophy. You have made an assertion that I am “wrong” but you have not proven it using naturalistic presuppositions. It is you who are wrong.
June 16 at 8:10am

Michael Kabik
we are done
June 16 at 12:01pm

Michael Kabik
did I not tell you my best friend is a geneticist and worked with 2 Nobel Winners?? I gave you references and you are questioning the undeniable founding principle and FACT of evolution. Go back to tour god and lies. We both know what you are about. Narrow minded thinking and magic. Read Gould, Dawkins anything but the Bible. I live in the real world.
June 16 at 12:13pm

Michael Kabik
Errors Are a Natural Part of DNA Replication
After James Watson and Francis Crick published their model of the double-helix structure of DNA in 1953, biologists initially speculated that most replication errors were caused by what are called tautomeric shifts. Both the purine and pyrimidine bases in DNA exist in different chemical forms, or tautomers, in which the protons occupy different positions in the molecule (Figure 1). The Watson-Crick model required that the nucleotide bases be in their more common “keto” form (Watson & Crick, 1953). Scientists believed that if and when a nucleotide base shifted into its rarer tautomeric form (the “imino” or “enol” form), a likely result would be base-pair mismatching. But evidence for these types of tautomeric shifts remains sparse.

A multi-panel schematic diagram shows how nucleotides form different base-pair relationships when they exist in different chemical forms. In panel A, the molecular structures of the nucleotides thymine, guanine, cytosine, and adenine are shown in two columns: the left column shows the four nucleotides in their common form and the right column shows the four nucleotides in their rare form. A curved red arrow indicates where protons shift on the common structure to produce the rare tautomer. Panel B shows the common base pairing arrangements between the common chemical structures of thymine and adenine and between cytosine and guanine. Panel C shows the rare base-pairing arrangements between the rare chemical structure of cytosine and the common chemical structure of adenine and between the common chemical structure of thymine and the rare chemical structure of guanine. I would send you tons more but I really want ot end this nonsense now.
June 16 at 12:16pm

Dan Luis Obispo (Initial Posting)
Yes, this is fact. But, has anyone discussed why modern whales are so damn big?
June 20 at 3:04pm

Ken Barratt (Initial Posting)
From toothed to baleen is a major leap. Not shown in this animation.
June 14 at 1:58pm

Peter Roof (Initial Posting)
What I find interesting is that most animals evolved from sea creatures. This line was on land and went back in.
June 8 at 12:02am

Bill Cramer
Makes sense when one considers the border between different environments creating options for the animals that live there. What direction are modern seals headed?
June 10 at 9:59am

Freddy Davis
What I find interesting is that there is no science do demonstrate that naturalistic evolution is even possible.
June 14 at 1:49pm

Peter Roof
I’ll stick with fact and evidence-based science. Belief not required. I respect your desire to take a simplistic approach to complex concepts that are difficult to comprehend.
June 14 at 2:19pm

Freddy Davis
So, where is the evidence? There is none.
June 14 at 9:06pm

Jeff Campbell (Initial Posting)
Reminds me of those pictures where a less than desirable individual morphs into a “10” at 2 am.
June 12 at 6:28pm

Joshua Stief (Initial Posting)
Cool graphic but I wish they included a length/weight scale.
June 18 at 8:58pm

Frances Newsom-Lang (Initial Posting)
Don’t care what you say, I enjoyed the ART of it! Do you have any idea how how this is to create?
June 19 at 6:33pm

Bill LocktheDoor (Initial Posting)
And here I thought we all came out of the sea. This fellow went back in!
June 17 at 4:54pm

Ken Mayberg (Initial Posting)
But the Bible says the Earth was created about 6000 years ago.
June 14 at 11:03pm

John Paul (Initial Posting)
Reichmuth unfortunately I have one of the things at :44 in my back yard
June 12 at 7:01pm

David Beasley (Initial Posting)
Has anyone seen the fossils of the intermediate species?
June 14 at 12:43am

Arthur Ballard
Yes
June 14 at 1:09pm

Freddy Davis
Arthur Ballard None that can actually be confirmed by science as an intermediate species.
June 14 at 1:34pm

Arthur Ballard
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03

Transitional forms
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its…
EVOLUTION.BERKELEY.EDU
June 14 at 1:46pm

Lyle Tipple
Here’s an another page with transitional forms… http://www.transitionalfossils.com/
(A few) transitional fossils
A partial list of transitional fossils.
TRANSITIONALFOSSILS.COM
June 14 at 3:02pm

Arthur Ballard
Freddy Davis What would you know about science? You appear to be a creationist.
June 14 at 5:46pm

Freddy Davis
Do you not realize that Christians believe in science? Science only deals with matters that relate to the material universe, and Christians actually believe that the universe exists, and that it operates based on the natural laws of the universe. It is just that we believe that something exists beyond that, as well.

And you do realize that science is a methodology, right, and not a religion? The belief in naturalistic evolution is a religious point of view. Naturalistic evolution has never been observed, and there is no known biological mechanism to support the possibility that is it could occur. If you have something to demonstrate it, I am all for seeing it.
June 14 at 9:13pm

Arthur Ballard
Freddy Davis Baloney. Evolution is based on a mountain of evidence and observation and I showed you the mechanism already, which you of course reject because it doesn’t fit your religion.
June 15 at 9:37am

Arthur Ballard
Freddy Davis For example: http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/…/140903-pr-molecular…/

Study reveals diverse molecular mechanisms underlying evolution -…
BBSRC.AC.UK
June 15 at 9:39am

Kevin James (Initial Posting)
Lot’s of imagination with little to no scientific back up. Largely speculation.
June 9 at 12:15pm

Freddy Davis
Actually, 100% speculation.
June 9 at 4:49pm

Kevin James
I will go with that.
June 9 at 7:36pm

Jake Page
Just because you are not smart enough to understand the science, doesn’t mean it’s speculation. You would clearly have been one of those claiming Sun revolved around the Earth 600 years ago because you didn’t understand the science and math (apologies for any assumptions on my part if you still believe this).
June 11 at 6:43pm

Joshua Adam
Linsley Jake Page
Copied from another user…

“Science deals with observable, repeatable events. Evolution does neither of these.”

There’s little science to understand when it comes to this kind of evolution as there is little to no observable evidence. That’s why it is speculation.

Also, there’s nothing wrong with speculation unless you pretend it’s irrefutable fact.
June 12 at 12:57pm

Kevin James Jake
I love science and I think I understand it pretty well. And thus, I can say that speculation is a huge part of it.
June 12 at 12:58pm

Bobby Beard
Every new fossil gives a clearer picture. Evolution theory like hard science is open to being disproven. Wants to be challenged and refuted with new evidence. I don’t think there are any professional paleontologists that would disagree with the claim that a lot of evolution is speculation. You should however realize that it’s not 100% speculation.
June 12 at 1:16pm

Baird Brutscher
Joshua Adam Linsley Yours and the original user’s definition of “observable, repeatable events” is clearly skewed by what you want to believe. Why not “teach the controversy” on plate tectonics or where petroleum comes from?
June 12 at 1:24pm

Joshua Adam
Linsley Is it skewed or does it simply differ? Is mine just a less broad definition? If it’s clearly skewed then please offer a correction instead of an insult. Insults are a deflection tactic.

ob·serv·a·ble
adjective
able to be noticed or perceived; discernible.

re·peat·a·ble
adjective
able to be done again.

e·vent
noun
plural noun: events
a thing that happens, especially one of importance.
June 12 at 2:47pm

Bobby Beard
The fossil record is observable. It is not complete and there are known holes in it.

Evolution is not repeatable yet. There are too many variables over too long a time frame. Evolution is being experimented with in fruit flies bc of their extremely short lives and high mutation rate.

The change of one species into another I think would count as an event.
June 12 at 2:50pm

Bobby Beard
The lack of repeatable events, or repeatable experiments in the field of evolution is the reason it is still referred to as the “Theory of Evolution” not the fact of evolution.

The lack of repeatable experimentation does not disavow the evidence that does exist but does prevent it from entering into the arena of hard science.
June 12 at 2:53pm

Joshua Adam
Linsley Bobby Beard This is precisely my point. Evolution has been proven in the sense of simple adaptation, but more complex changes are still highly theoretical. It doesn’t mean the theory is a bad one, it just means it’s filled with lots of speculation over the available data and the holes in said data.

No one should take my desire for more information as a blatant disregard for existing information.
June 12 at 2:55pm

Timothy Ender
There is a difference, a huge difference when experts in the science field “speculate” and laymen without the education or training or experience , “speculate”.

I’d rather a trained educated licensed physician “speculate” about my health than some dude on FB who has zero credentials in the field(s) of Science.
June 13 at 9:57am

Freddy Davis
Jake Page So, show me the science. I’m willing to listen, but all that is here is pure speculation with NO actual science to back it up.
June 13 at 10:11am

Freddy Davis
Bobby Beard It is 100% speculation when there is no known biological mechanism capable of providing for a macro-evolutionary outcome.
June 13 at 10:12am

Freddy Davis
Bobby Beard The fossil record is data. That is not something than can be experimented upon. Data must be interpreted by some interpretive lens. The lens you are proposing is naturalistic evolution. The fact that you say evolution is not repeatable “yet” is quite an interesting way of saying you believe it by faith (that it is a religious point of view).
June 13 at 10:17am

Freddy Davis
Timothy Ender There has never been a single “expert in the field” who has been (able to) demonstrate using actual science that naturalistic evolution is even possible. It is based purely on faith that all of reality is explainable based on natural science. It is a religious point of view.
June 13 at 10:19am

Adam Birnbaum
That’s not what “speculation” means. When you demand that someone “show you the science,” what, precisely, are you asking for? What kind of evidence do you want to see?
June 13 at 12:15pm

Freddy Davis
Adam Birnbaum If naturalistic evolution is actually true, then there must be some biological mechanism within life forms that allows for that to happen. Yet, scientists have not found any mechanism at all. And, in fact, when scientists (and various kinds of plant and animal breeders) try to push the envelope, they always come to a point where it can’t be pushed any further. There is no science to demonstrate naturalistic evolution could possibly even be true. So, to answer your question, show me some actual science that demonstrates naturalistic evolution is possible – whatever that might be.
June 13 at 1:06pm

Arthur Ballard
Freddy Davis Never heard of DNA?
June 14 at 1:23pm

Freddy Davis
Arthur Ballard Yes, I have heard of DNA. What is your point?
June 14 at 1:35pm

Arthur Ballard
Freddy Davis http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib…/article/mutations_01
DNA and Mutations, the hereditary material of life. An organism’s DNA affects how it looks, how it behaves, and its physiology. So a change in an organism’s DNA can cause changes in all aspects of its life.
EVOLUTION.BERKELEY.EDU
June 14 at 1:41pm

Lyle Tipple
http://www.transitionalfossils.com/
(A few) transitional fossils
A partial list of transitional fossils.
TRANSITIONALFOSSILS.COM
June 14 at 3:02pm

Freddy Davis
Arthur Ballard Nice speculation, but there is no evidence whatsoever that the scope of mutations that would be necessary to create a macro-evolutionary change is even possible. The evidence simply is not there.
June 14 at 9:17pm

Jake Page
Sigh.. to those doubters of basic evolutionary principles… do you believe the universe is 6000 years old? If not, that belief is based entirely on trusting other people aka physicists, geologists, archaeologists, etc (and their theories, extrapolations, and mathematics). No different from every credible biologist accepting evolution based on the massive amount of similar high quality evidence.

If so (aka you think maybe the Earth *is* 6000 years old), then what is your proof of that? A book written by an anonymous collection of humans that even those who wrote and preserved it (Catholics) mostly consider a collection of morality plays with ZERO actual evidence to back it up? Sorry, but you seriously do sound like the flat Earthers of the past who claim that the fact that they don’t see the curvature is actually credible empirical evidence.
June 15 at 2:00am

Jake Page
Freddy Davis over your 6000 year understanding of the Universe maybe. I know it’s hard to conceive of 2 billion years of life on Earth, but that doesn’t mean just because you can’t imagine it that others can’t.
June 15 at 2:02am

Michael Kabik (Initial Posting)
After all the posts I have read it becomes very apparent that certain people are opposing evolution as described by the MAJORITY of the scientific community. Some of them are Bible folks righteously deciding that the end justifies the means when it comes to “SAVING” souls and it is ok to deceive and make crap up and convince people that they have some scientific insight that disproves the VAST majority of true scientific people and their organizations. My advice to the common man and woman, like me. who are not scientist but want to learn enough to understand the truth, READ a book by some of THE most respected minds in the world instead of reading some know it all big mouths with hidden agendas. Simple, you want your heart fixed you go to the EXPERT. If 8 out of 10 doctors say this and 2 say that….whose advice do you take ?……cmon what is logical in this situation? Here are 2 books among many by the Harvard Prof and the theorist for punctuated equilibrium. Also Richard Dawkins and E.O Wilson considered to be one of the greatest scientist of the 20th century. Don’t listen to me or some evangelical idiot who believes in magic bushes and original sin just pick up a BOOK by the people who have invested their lives in the field. Or………next time your car beaks down take it to a Barber and see what he can do..
June 18 at 10:20am

Lawrence Melton (Initial Posting)
Whales are still whales. Monkeys are still monkeys, people are still people.
June 19 at 12:53pm

Jeff Cuneo (Initial Posting)
yep the whales evolved from a wolf type creature that had no choice but to work the water more and more as the climate changed.
June 18 at 8:04pm

Wayne Blockhead (Initial Posting)
Man oh man…it sure takes a lot of faith to believe this fairy tale.
June 14 at 12:24pm

Michael Callaghan (Initial Posting)
How sad for the whales.
June 14 at 10:15pm

Preston Rogers (Initial Posting)
I bet over 50% of our US Politicos would say this is not true.
June 13 at 8:12pm

Freddy Davis
Hopefully.
June 14 at 1:50pm

Kevin Goodall (Initial Posting)
Pure conjecture and really looks ridiculous!!
June 17 at 1:57am

Bob Stoloff (Initial Posting)
Reminds me of my personal photo album.
June 19 at 12:13pm

Andrea Power Dripps (Initial Posting)
Wondering what WE will look like.
June 14 at 7:49pm

Craig D Nelson (Initial Posting)
Silly Make believe stuff
June 17 at 4:35pm

Bill Heiting (Initial Posting)
And here I thought mammals evolved from fish!
June 14 at 2:20pm

James Goree (Initial Posting)
Wow, incredible graphic!
June 13 at 2:42pm

Tony DeQuinzio (Initial Posting)
but wasn’t there a big boat…………..? ;)
June 13 at 7:45am

Celia Fern Mooradian (Initial Posting)
Bradley Smith, we were talking about this!!!
June 12 at 4:39pm

Art Riechert (Initial Posting)
I like this. Fascinating stuff.
June 19 at 10:53am

Mark Pittman (Initial Posting)
Walker Not possible world is only 6000 years old.
June 14 at 6:49pm

B Chef Ber (Initial Posting)
BLASPHEMY! happy monday everyone….
June 19 at 10:54am

Matthew Betteridge (Initial Posting)
Elisha Swanson Natasha Thompson
June 18 at 6:04pm

Ron Kent Hooper [VIDEO] (Initial Posting)
Symphony of Science – The Greatest Show on …

3:21
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxDOpAM2FrQ

By melodysheep · 1.6M views
Jan 17, 2012 · “The Greatest Show on Earth” is the 13th video in the Symphony of Science music … Evolution – the greatest show on EARTH

Symphony of Science – The Greatest Show on Earth! A…
YOUTUBE.COM
June 19 at 10:18pm

Peter Brychel (Initial Posting)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00kfqm6
June 8 at 7:39am

© 2017 Freddy Davis

Related Articles

Share

About Author

Freddy Davis

(3) Readers Comments

  1. I haven’t heard anyone on the new scientific thought of intelligent design.

    • What would you like to hear?

  2. As the months go by many of the old ideas of evolution have been put to death. To not believe in God and His ideas on how we should live is suggesting that many of the horrible things people do isn’t wrong. Without God anything is possible. Darwin, Hawkins and those others, many are dead, aren’t the wisest of men and we shouldn’t suggest that they were. New discoveries are up ahead. Paul the Apostle wrote in addressing the Romans of his time that, Those who believe they are wise are the biggest fools of all.

Leave a Reply to Raymond Driskill Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *