Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Help! Confusing Article On Evolution


R. S. Martin

Recommended Posts

Can someone help me make sense of this? I found this post on Facebook as follows:

 

Uh oh! More upsetting news for evolutionists.

This article says flawed methodology challenges a decade of evolutionary research. Says the article: 


"The core assumption is that any portion of fossil diversity that can be explained by variations in rock volume should be explained by variations in rock volume. This assumption is based on no evidence."


But my post is not about this article specifically. I want to make a larger point about science in general. All scientific theories are based on assumptions. It is unavoidable. Assumptions are not the problem. (Indeed, science itself is based on several assumptions that make no sense unless God exists.)


What's troubling is how atheistic evolutionists often deny these assumptions and even call creationists liars when they point them out.


The next time you hear an evolutionist say evolution is not based on assumptions, you have to ask yourself whether they are ignorant or lying to hide something. If they are young and inexperienced, give them the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to a poor public school education. But Dawkins, Coyne and Meyers - well, let's just say their track record for honesty is less than stellar. FROM https://www.facebook.com/randyruggles/posts/10154395194795783?pnref=story

 

The article linked and quoted in the post is "Flawed analysis casts doubt on years of evolution reseach," Press release issued: 24 October 2016 by University of Bristol, UK at http://bristol.ac.uk/news/2016/october/evolution-research-.html.

I'm no scientist so I don't understand the article but it does not (in my mind) seem to contradict the entire 150-year-old theory of evolution, just a tiny aspect of it that someone developed ten years ago. So how can this guy, Randy Ruggles, say the article is upsetting news for all evolutionists? Can someone explain in simple language what the article is actually saying?

 

I wasn't looking for a reply from Randy but nonetheless he replied thus:  I wasn't implying that this one problem called into question the entire theory of evolution. The reason I wrote "More upsetting news for evolutionists" is because I frequently post links to peer-reviewed articles that do pose problems for evolution. I even wrote a book on the subject. I do believe that the scientific evidence is against Neo-Darwinism (mutations plus selection equals evolution) but, as I stated in the original post, my point was more a commentary on how assumptions are necessary to science and how atheistic evolutionists like Dawkins and Coyne often try to hide that fact.

FROM https://www.facebook.com/randyruggles/posts/10154400685905783?pnref=story

 

It just gets more and more confusing. Since no atheists replied where I posted it, I'm trying this forum. I have read Darwin's Origin of the Species and watched Neil deGrass Tyson and others on DVD and YouTube. I will appreciate if someone can clarify what the article is really about and how Randy Ruggles can make the claims he does. Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Can someone help me make sense of this? I found this post on Facebook as follows:

 

Uh oh! More upsetting news for evolutionists.

This article says flawed methodology challenges a decade of evolutionary research. Says the article: 

"The core assumption is that any portion of fossil diversity that can be explained by variations in rock volume should be explained by variations in rock volume. This assumption is based on no evidence."

But my post is not about this article specifically. I want to make a larger point about science in general. All scientific theories are based on assumptions. It is unavoidable. Assumptions are not the problem. (Indeed, science itself is based on several assumptions that make no sense unless God exists.)

What's troubling is how atheistic evolutionists often deny these assumptions and even call creationists liars when they point them out.

The next time you hear an evolutionist say evolution is not based on assumptions, you have to ask yourself whether they are ignorant or lying to hide something. If they are young and inexperienced, give them the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to a poor public school education. But Dawkins, Coyne and Meyers - well, let's just say their track record for honesty is less than stellar. FROM https://www.facebook.com/randyruggles/posts/10154395194795783?pnref=story

 

The article linked and quoted in the post is "Flawed analysis casts doubt on years of evolution reseach," Press release issued: 24 October 2016 by University of Bristol, UK at http://bristol.ac.uk/news/2016/october/evolution-research-.html.

I'm no scientist so I don't understand the article but it does not (in my mind) seem to contradict the entire 150-year-old theory of evolution, just a tiny aspect of it that someone developed ten years ago. So how can this guy, Randy Ruggles, say the article is upsetting news for all evolutionists? Can someone explain in simple language what the article is actually saying?

 

I wasn't looking for a reply from Randy but nonetheless he replied thus:  I wasn't implying that this one problem called into question the entire theory of evolution. The reason I wrote "More upsetting news for evolutionists" is because I frequently post links to peer-reviewed articles that do pose problems for evolution. I even wrote a book on the subject. I do believe that the scientific evidence is against Neo-Darwinism (mutations plus selection equals evolution) but, as I stated in the original post, my point was more a commentary on how assumptions are necessary to science and how atheistic evolutionists like Dawkins and Coyne often try to hide that fact.

FROM https://www.facebook.com/randyruggles/posts/10154400685905783?pnref=story

 

It just gets more and more confusing. Since no atheists replied where I posted it, I'm trying this forum. I have read Darwin's Origin of the Species and watched Neil deGrass Tyson and others on DVD and YouTube. I will appreciate if someone can clarify what the article is really about and how Randy Ruggles can make the claims he does. Thanks in advance.

 

 

There are no general assumptions involved with the theory of evolution. Assumptions may be made or used for specific studies or analysis but none are needed in general. Evolution has many facets to it. For instance natural selection is no longer a theory. It is now called a principle, the Principle of of Natural Selection.  This is because there is a mountain of evidence to support it, and therefore it is unquestionable among science practitioners in the related field, or educated people in general.

 

As to other aspects of the theory of evolution, it will be forever a work-in-progress as more data generally confirms of contradicts present theory, Some of the latest insights involve epigenetics. This is where existing genes in a plant or animal can be turned on or off by external or internal influences, causing physical changes in the entity without genetic change. Another area of present research in evolution involves bacterial and viral influences on a plant or animals genetics. This does not involve random mutations but involves genetic integration in reproductive systems. Likewise there are many new insights in evolution theory, but there is no question concerning the foundation principle of natural selection.

 

If you read of any general questioning of the foundations of the theory of evolution, then you can be certain that what you are reading is opinions likely based upon religious nonsense and not based upon science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

During my recent talk with my parents this fact of science changing, altering, or disproving theories came up as 'proof science can be wrong' therefore one shouldn't base their beliefs on it. (Lets ignore that there is no belief in science, like religious belief)

 

I said, yes, what happens is a scientist proposes a theory, works on it, then often another scientist comes along and shows the theory is wrong and disproves it. I also said the other thing that happens is new info comes to light and gets incorporated into theories to reflect that. That's science. What they don't do is find a gaping hole and fill it with talking animals, angry Gods, and apocalyptic visions which is what the religious base their life on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Pantheory and Logical Fallacy. I get that part. I think what confused me is this Ruggles guy takes a quote out of context, then builds a case on it. It's as though he either does not understand the article and science in general or maybe he does it on purpose.

 

He asked to be my Facebook friend. As though I need the kind of friend who confuses the issue!

 

What made it even more confusing is that he is friends with a person I know only as a nonbeliever activist. I was researching Ruggles because of a suspicious response he made on the nonbeliever activists' post. And found this anti-evolution God stuff. 

 

Very insidious, sneaky, the way he wiggles his way into nonbelievers' lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xians live in a different world, especially fundamentalists. They will grab any straw that's within reach that might in any remote way, at least in their minds, offer evidence that their invisible sky buddy actually does exist.

 

One Xian recently told me, when I referenced some excerpts from Dr. Robert Price book, The Christ Myth & It's Problems, everybody knows so called Bible Scholars make that stuff up because they hate God. Hard to believe educated people can be that ignorant. Religion apparently eats human brain matter & renders it useless.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In rereading Ruggles's answer to my post, I see he does not answer anything. He claims he is not trying to undermine the entire 150 year old evolution theory. But instead of saying what he is trying to do, he switches topic to the stuff he and other anti-evolutionists have written, calling it peer-reviewed. 

 

He does not behave like a guy who has lost his gray matter. He's actually quite smart to mix and match words and concepts and principles like that, in such a way that almost confuses honest people. I call that "misusing his talent." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, evolution is not what the theory is. Evolution is a fact. (That one species can change over time can be proven simply by looking at the many breeds of dogs, created over the years by selective breeding.) The theory of evolution is the mechanism by which evolution happened.

 

I would say that the premise of the FB post is flawed. Theories are based not on assumptions, as the FB post claims, but on observable facts. (This differs from a hypothesis which could be called an educated guess that is subject to further investigation.) That a theory is modified when new facts are discovered does not negate the value of a theory, nor disprove the facts.

 

Science goes to reality, examines the facts, and comes up with a theory based on what it sees within those facts. And science is comfortable with a certain amount of uncertainty. Science never claims to have all the answers. On the other hand, religion, on those rare occasions when it goes to reality and examines the facts, comes up with an explanation for the facts based upon preconceived notions of causation. Religion often claims that it does have all the answers.

 

Religion cannot accept the uncertainties that science is comfortable with. When science cannot develop a theory, it just leaves the question open. Religion does not leave questions open but assigns answers based on theology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Pantheory and Logical Fallacy. I get that part. I think what confused me is this Ruggles guy takes a quote out of context, then builds a case on it. It's as though he either does not understand the article and science in general or maybe he does it on purpose.

 

He asked to be my Facebook friend. As though I need the kind of friend who confuses the issue!

 

What made it even more confusing is that he is friends with a person I know only as a nonbeliever activist. I was researching Ruggles because of a suspicious response he made on the nonbeliever activists' post. And found this anti-evolution God stuff. 

 

Very insidious, sneaky, the way he wiggles his way into nonbelievers' lives.

 

From my own experience most believers are harmless, not trying to hurt anyone. In one way or another many try to "spread the good news" which they believe is contained in the new testament. When science and religion conflict they often defend their beliefs. In science one should not defend any idea based upon personal beliefs. The only question would be the validity of the conflicting observations or proposals based upon present and past observations.

 

Of course you can be friends with a believer like this guy. As a non-believer you can be friends with anyone that you think is interesting, for whatever reason. Like most believers his motives would be to explain "his truth." If you are interested, listen to what he has to say. If it doesn't make sense to you, you can chalk it up to his probable ignorance of science as a believer. For this, you don't need to have concern over anything that he says. You do not need to talk to him regarding his criticisms of science unless you know the answers to explain to him why his argument is probably wrong. If you cannot do this, and if you are still interested, you know which areas to research and study on the net or otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for not responding sooner. I needed time to think and the last few days have been quite busy. 

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, evolution is not what the theory is. Evolution is a fact. (That one species can change over time can be proven simply by looking at the many breeds of dogs, created over the years by selective breeding.) The theory of evolution is the mechanism by which evolution happened.

 

No one one more knowledgeable than me has corrected you so I assume you're right. It sounds right to me.

 

I would say that the premise of the FB post is flawed.

 

 

After reading what people here and elsewhere have to say, I agree.

 

Theories are based not on assumptions, as the FB post claims, but on observable facts. (This differs from a hypothesis which could be called an educated guess that is subject to further investigation.) That a theory is modified when new facts are discovered does not negate the value of a theory, nor disprove the facts.

 

How does one explain this to Christians? It's so simple and straightforward--and logical--but they insist we're hiding something. Maybe they twist intentionally so they can keep up their myths about science being built on faith? As in assumptions=faith? I guess disbelieving facts and discrediting evidence to preserve preconceived notions and pet beliefs lets you do all kinds of things in the Name of God, huh? Doesn't make it right, thought, or truthful.

 

Science goes to reality, examines the facts, and comes up with a theory based on what it sees within those facts. And science is comfortable with a certain amount of uncertainty. Science never claims to have all the answers. On the other hand, religion, on those rare occasions when it goes to reality and examines the facts, comes up with an explanation for the facts based upon preconceived notions of causation. Religion often claims that it does have all the answers.

 

I think you've got Randy Ruggles nailed. 

 

Thanks for your analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thanks, Pantheory and Logical Fallacy. I get that part. I think what confused me is this Ruggles guy takes a quote out of context, then builds a case on it. It's as though he either does not understand the article and science in general or maybe he does it on purpose.

 

He asked to be my Facebook friend. As though I need the kind of friend who confuses the issue!

 

What made it even more confusing is that he is friends with a person I know only as a nonbeliever activist. I was researching Ruggles because of a suspicious response he made on the nonbeliever activists' post. And found this anti-evolution God stuff. 

 

Very insidious, sneaky, the way he wiggles his way into nonbelievers' lives.

 

From my own experience most believers are harmless, not trying to hurt anyone. In one way or another many try to "spread the good news" which they believe is contained in the new testament. When science and religion conflict they often defend their beliefs. In science one should not defend any idea based upon personal beliefs. The only question would be the validity of the conflicting observations or proposals based upon present and past observations.

 

Of course you can be friends with a believer like this guy. As a non-believer you can be friends with anyone that you think is interesting, for whatever reason. Like most believers his motives would be to explain "his truth." If you are interested, listen to what he has to say. If it doesn't make sense to you, you can chalk it up to his probable ignorance of science as a believer. For this, you don't need to have concern over anything that he says. You do not need to talk to him regarding his criticisms of science unless you know the answers to explain to him why his argument is probably wrong. If you cannot do this, and if you are still interested, you know which areas to research and study on the net or otherwise.

 

 

I agree one can be friends with Christians. I have a number of Christian friends where the relationship is based on other things than life philosophies. In the case of this guy, there is no basis for a relationship or friendship that is meaningful for me, given that I don't wish at this point in my life to endlessly debate religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.