OBSTACLES IN EVOLUTION
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
The assignment would have been the perfect time for the professor to take your side and correct me. But no mention of a scientific consensus however. How do you even find such a thing? Can you show me where? I'd love to cite the scientific consensus on my next paper.
Interesting topic. I'd like to venture a guess.
I don't think a second eye wouldn't introduce chaos to the organism in question. I think the second eye would've been introduced quite early on. The organism would simply have two photo sensitive parts of it's "body". When this species evolved better eyes and into more complex organisms, the ones with two eyes would definitely have an advantage as the two eyes meant it could look in two different directions (in the case of fish) as opposed to fish with just one eye who couldn't even see if a rock happened to fall on them from their blind side.
"Scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.
Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognise such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contested. On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.
Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution or the lack of a link between MMR vaccinations and autism.."
Project Steve, showing the consensus among science that species evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution accurately explains. It also shows that creationism lies and dishonestly tries to portray science as being in conflict over evolution, when in fact only a minuscule number of scientists disagree with species evolution and this is based on their religious beliefs not on any scientifically valid evidence.
I know what you mean when you say scientific consensus. My point is there's no authority to the phrase. It doesn't make a difference what the consensus is. I can't use consensus as evidence for anything, or as validity for an argument.
"I know what you mean when you say scientific consensus. My point is there's no authority to the phrase. It doesn't make a difference what the consensus is. I can't use consensus as evidence for anything, or as validity for an argument."
As I said, you have shown repeatedly that you have no idea what the phrase means in a scientific context, and this can only mean you have an execrable grasp of the scientific process and method. Repeating this just reinforces the fact that you are disputing scientific fact without even a basic grasp of what constitutes scientific fact, in favour of superstitious creationist propaganda.
You have some questions about evolution you do not understand. Evolution is a scientific theory and humans have two eyes, so is it more likely that 150+ years of evolutionary theory is false, or you do not fully understand it? Ask a biologist.
Also, if evolution were proved false one day, which it certainly could, it would not get us any closer to god.
How long did Ptolomy's almagest remain uncontested? Newtons ideas?
Sorry, but time is an irrelevant variable here.
It has nothing to do with time per se, it has everything to do with evidence. In the modern scientific era ideas are scrutinised as never before, and information exchanged as never before. I'm sorry but this is typical of people who have been indoctrinated by religious beliefs like creationism. The evidence is overwhelming, and none of it falsifies species evolution.
As I said you don't disagree with other scientific theories, like gravity or germ theory, it surely can't have escaped your notice you are only contesting science that contradicts your religious beliefs, that alone should have alarm bells ringing if you have any objectivity left. You claim your professor has encouraged you to think for yourself, well try honestly doing that and questioning beliefs that encourage you to have faith in them rather observed testable evidence.
If you doubt species evolution can you explain why scientists have been able to replicate it in a laboratory using fruit flies and with selective breeding taking the place of natural selection? At the University of Arizona no less.
"Scientists at the University of Arizona may have witnessed the birth of a new species...The work could help scientists identify the genetic changes that lead one species to evolve into two species. The research is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."
Arguments must stand on their own merit. I could be the most biased human on earth, with the biggest agenda. None of it would invalidate an argument.
All I did here was pose the problem, and ask for a solution. I never mentioned creationism, evolution being false, or anything else you've accused me of.
"Arguments must stand on their own merit."
I agree, and science has the best record for establishing the truth of claims, and it accepts species evolution as fact.
"I could be the most biased human on earth, with the biggest agenda. None of it would invalidate an argument."
Or validate it, but being biased is not a good start, and faith is as biased as it gets, whereas science is as objective as it gets.
"All I did here was pose the problem, and ask for a solution."
It;s your subjective opinion that what you presented is a problem, and you are a creationist with an agenda, and your "problem" is being presented on an atheist forum, so has no scientific validity, and you have shown repeatedly that you don't grasp the significance of this.
"I never mentioned creationism, evolution being false, "
""Fri, 10/13/2017 - 10:52 (Reply to #13)Permalink
John 6IX Breezy
I am reasonable, but we are on opposing sides here. You think I'm wrong, and ****I think you're wrong.***"
So who is wrong about what there? Even by creationist standards your duplicity is breathtaking.
Sat, 10/21/2017 - 10:22
John 6IX Breezy John 6IX Breezy's picture
All I did here was pose the problem, and ask for a solution. I never mentioned ...evolution being false,
"Sat, 10/21/2017 - 07:58 (Reply to #59)Permalink
John 6IX Breezy
"Ironically, I wrote my paper on evolutionary psychology and why their methods and findings aren't scientific. I passed the assignment obviously."
Dear oh dear...
@Sheldon, I think you're making a false equivalence here. One may be skeptical on evolutionary psychology (current) methods and findings but accepting biological evolution as a fact...
And I wonder why you consider findings on this field unscientific, @Breezy... That could make an interesting OP in the future.
I actually tried asking the forum for help when I was writing it. But I had to take it down lol.
@JohnB, well, maybe you can post your conclusions and we can discuss from that, not the other way around... I mean, sometimes you throw a loose question, and we're not able to see where this is coming, so it's unproductive at the end.
Btw, I'm glad to see you got your name back.
I think the need to ascribe design to existence with an intelligence beneath it is a must-have for many people. Without that life is inexplicable, and the way it should be without a sentient explanation, but the theist will not accept cosmic happenstance once baited by a god construct. That mind is too weak and fearful to accept the cold, emotionless and dispassionate expanse of the universe, the lack of understanding for it to exist without intelligent design, and the fear that faith in the god-construct will not yield the advertised reward of truth, in the religious sense of the word, and its promised reward at the corporeal end game.
Evolution is more of a theory than a fact, but at least it's a base to build upon and all that could be in evidence is lying on or in the ground awaiting discovery. Theism can only offer the ether of fantasy where nothing can find solid footing. I find the argument for it over evolution the weaker stance.
"Evolution is more of a theory than a fact, "
Scientific theories are explanations of scientific facts. They are based on testable evidence. Gravity is a scientific fact, it is explained by scientific theory.
Finally you said something right.
What have I said that is demonstrably incorrect? I'd appreciate knowing, as otherwise I shall remain ignorant of my error.
It really makes no sense to ask a psuedo-scientific question of a bunch of atheists in an attempt to show that science is wrong. You have to use your own scientific reasoning to assert that science is unreasonable. That's called a paradox. Just one of several you have demonstrated. When you can admit that the only reasonable conclusion is that religion is a con then you will be using science, until then you are just playing games.