Freedomain Radio

Basically yes.  It is clear parts of evolutionary theory are truth.  Dogs and the darkening of moths are perfect examples of species development.  It is easy enough to discredit creationists claim on their own merits than to automatically assume evolution answers everything and bring those topics to the discussion. 

As stated, the evolutionist predictions are often found wrong.  If a gravitist (person who studies gravity) was regularly changing the equation for gravity because his predictions for acceleration and distance were discredited by experimentation, we would tell him to come back when he has more.  Welcoming the complete evolutionary theory therefore can't be rationally compared as in the podcast to "Yes it's a theory, just like the theory of gravity."

 

Bill:

Basically yes.  It is clear parts of evolutionary theory are truth.  Dogs and the darkening of moths are perfect examples of species development.  It is easy enough to discredit creationists claim on their own merits than to automatically assume evolution answers everything and bring those topics to the discussion. 

As stated, the evolutionist predictions are often found wrong.  If a gravitist (person who studies gravity) was regularly changing the equation for gravity because his predictions for acceleration and distance were discredited by experimentation, we would tell him to come back when he has more.  Welcoming the complete evolutionary theory therefore can't be rationally compared as in the podcast to "Yes it's a theory, just like the theory of gravity."

OK I haven't heard the podcast. Yet in your own senario we wouldn't discredit gravity. We would only discredit our knowledge of gravity. That is acceptible and warranted.

Yes, Bill is getting what I was aiming for. I didn't mean to say I believed in ID or something like that...the podcast was just very preachy, i.e. "An incredible intellectual treasure in the theory of evolution." "A crowning triumph of human intellectual achievement." "Magical" etc.

When it seems that there are clear problems and holes in much of the theory. I don't think that podcast would cause anyone with a closed mind to reconsider their position because it sounded so damn preachy. So if, for instance, my mom listened to it, she would dismiss it as biased and one-sided.

What would be needed to change my view? I don't buy the 2% thing could work--yes I read the articles--but I don't believe it. I don't see anything that has part of a new feature, say anything evolving wings, a beak, legs, etc. If macroevolution is constantly occuring, why aren't there any between species things alive now? Why does Richard Dawkins think the giraffe was the product of a macroevolutionary event, when he usually believes in the gradulism Stef described. This strikes me as especially weird since giraffes were specifically mentioned in said podcast. I don't understand how it is possible that mutations could improve things over time. The mutation wouldn't have to happen just once--it would have to happen in several animals of the same species at the same time that would have to breed together before they died... I would need an expert to sit down and explain the theory to and answer my questions one at a time. My biology teacher couldn't answer my questions in high school, and so I still don't know. And honestly, I don't trust the internet enough, or my science (non)intellect to reason it out on my own.

My problem was more with the tone of the podcast--make it a conversation, not a lecture if you want to change people's opinions.

Ronpaulfan:

When it seems that there are clear problems and holes in much of the theory. I don't think that podcast would cause anyone with a closed mind to reconsider their position because it sounded so damn preachy. So if, for instance, my mom listened to it, she would dismiss it as biased and one-sided.

I don't mean to sound too sarcastic here, but is there some reason why I should pay attention to what "ron's mom" thinks, when evaluating the content of these podcasts?

Why should you care what people like my mom think? Unless the point of the show is to reassure athiest anarchists in what they already believe, then using a condescending tone will turn people off. If you want people like my mom to continue to give the show a try (she's listened to about a dozen podcasts so far) then you can't use obviously biased language and tone. If she were to download this podcast and listen to it, she would never listen to another podcast again. I turned from miniarchist to anarchist because of this show--and I never would have continued listenening if this were the first podcast I had heard of Stef's. And my mom has turned from Republican to miniarchist--certainly progress. Do you want to turn off people to the podcast because of tone? Anarchists are already a small enough minorty--we don't need to turn people off by using biased language. You can still talk about evolution without making it sound like an emotional lovefest.

I'm not sure if any one has pointed you in the direction before, but the Evolution 101 podcast series (found in Apple iTunes and, presumably, elsewhere) is, IMO, a very good source for explaining the current theory for the mechanisms behind evolution in pretty simple terms.  It is specifically geared at someone who is on the fence and would like more evidence. 

He just did a podcast specifically on issues surrounding speciation.....  Why don't we have any half species as something new evolves?  I think the answer that we understand right now is that every species is in the process of evolving and changing.  Also, it is very important to point out that every animal that you see today is the product of this gradual, continual change.  So, the shark you see today is just as evolved as you are.  We did not evolve from chimpanzees of today.  We both split off from a, possibly, different common ancestor that, due to pressures, became both distinct species. 

A final thing, is about evolution itself.  There are no scientists, unless they are totally outside of the mainstream of accepted science, that dispute evolution.  I think I could be so bold as to say that no one really can dispute that there is a process continually going on, which is evolution.  Just like you cannot really dispute that there is something which makes things fall down.  The process of evolution is going on.  Although it is called the Theory of Evolution, I think more completely, it should be called something like "The Theory describing the mechanisms behind Evolution."  Some of the mechanisms are in despute or are still being hashed out, but no one is denying the process.

Micro/macro and species are based more in the realm of Platonic ideals, rather than objective reality.  There is no such thing as a species nor is one creature more evolved than any other.  Current theories point toward adapting to the environment forcing one portion of a given group to change.  Some say that it also requires isolation.  Every individual organism is the product of evolutionary process since life began.  Dispute the mechanisms that cause organisms to become so differentiated, but it is very hard to dispute the process that has occured with out calling for a God and involking all of the problems it brings with it. 

I know your heart is in the right place...

It's just that the rest of the organs have gone to hell...

Still...

I'm really pleased that we are maintaining out 99% success rate for the casinos!!!

 

Aaww, come on, my appendix would be working just fine, if I actually needed it....

And, I do still have a little feeling left in my left, little toe.

Ronpaulfan:

I don't think that podcast would cause anyone with a closed mind to reconsider their position because it sounded so damn preachy. So if, for instance, my mom listened to it, she would dismiss it as biased and one-sided.

Could you explain what you mean by "Preachy"? How does one sound "preachy"? What specific aspects of the podcast were "preachy"?  If you could also listen to it again and give a specific example (mins/secs) of exactly where he was being "preachy" that would help us understand I'm sure.

I'm not sure how it is biased? Biased toward what? One-sided vs. what?  What is the other side? 

You do understand that while Richard Dawkins is an expert on evolution it doesn't mean some of his conclusions about giraffes are infallible.  Again, I'm not sure what macro-evolution is because the only thing I can interpret it to mean is a difference comparison over a large chunk of time.  There is punctuated equilibrium which is really nothing more than an unusual number of mutations over a shorter period of time than normal.

 

Ronpaulfan:

Unless the point of the show is to reassure athiest anarchists in what they already believe, then using a condescending tone will turn people off. If you want people like my mom to continue to give the show a try (she's listened to about a dozen podcasts so far) then you can't use obviously biased language and tone. If she were to download this podcast and listen to it, she would never listen to another podcast again. I turned from miniarchist to anarchist because of this show--and I never would have continued listenening if this were the first podcast I had heard of Stef's.

I think I agree with you that this podcast is more confrontational, than it is informative. This is why I would probably point people who are new to all of this to podcast 1, not podcast 576.

Ronpaulfan:

And my mom has turned from Republican to miniarchist--certainly progress. Do you want to turn off people to the podcast because of tone? Anarchists are already a small enough minorty--we don't need to turn people off by using biased language. You can still talk about evolution without making it sound like an emotional lovefest.

Frankly, Ron, if someone gets all the way to 576, and is then is suddenly offended by the "tone", I don't think it matters if we "turn off" that person, or not. He'd have to have been in some sort of vegatative state not to have gotten upset WAY before this. I mean, really. If the "Forget Offense" podcast, or the podcast on Humiliation, and the third podcast on Prostitution didn't send them screaming with their hands in the air, then certainly 576 isn't going to.

And, actually, I think Stef's podcast is quite a nice balance between righteous indignation, and contrite self-examination. If it were entirely mealy-mouthed humility, I think *I* would have given up on it, and if it were all righteous wrath and anger, then it would just be a low-budget, one-man version of Free-Talk-Live, or Alex Jones, and who the hell wants that?

As Stef himself has pointed out, this conversation is on a whole different plane of existence than everything else going on around us. As such, we have to be open to exploring ALL possible modes of discourse, and all avenues of human knowledge and experience. That experience, at times, is indeed dispassionate, analytical, and skeptical, sure; but it is also, passionate, emotional, and demanding. I don't think we should have to apologize for either.

 

Ronpaulfan:

I don't have audio available to me (in a coffee shop right now) so I can't specifically quote you...but you sounded very preachy about evolution. This combined with your laughfest in 425 about evolution didn't prove much of anything to me. I'm not defending god or gods... I just don't think you provided much evidence. You claim evolution is right up there with the theory of gravity in proof--so where is it? The strongest thing I heard was peppered moths, yet those are disputed...and that isn't even (macro)evolution anyway. It is microevolution, also known as natural selection. Accepting for the moment that the moth thing is true; big deal. A moth turned into a...moth. That isn't evidence for macroevolution--there was no new species created.

But a new species of moth could be created.  A species is defined as a group of organisms that can reproduce and produce fertile offspring.  So the mutation can lead to a new species. 

 

 Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe there are any clear fossil cases where a transitory species is seen. If animals are consistently evolving, where are the fossils to prove it? Also, the 2% improvement at a time idea...if a fish develops, lets say, 20% of a wing, doesn't that make it more vulnerable not less so? What good would 20% of a wing be? I think an animal with part of a wing would have less viability than the 0% winged fish would be. How about the bombardier beetle? It has a poison sac that it uses for defense...how do you form 5% of a poison sac without killing yourself if you are a beetle?

Fossils are quite rare, if you think about it.  And considering the geological nature of the Earth, it's not surprising that is the case.  And I don't think the 2% thing is correct.  Any mutation could randomly occur.  But those mutations which made an organism adapt to the demands of its physical environment and made it produce the most offspring in this environment would prosper.  This is the basis of evolution as a theory.   

 

 

Evolution may or may not be true--I don't know. But there are a lot of things that still need to be explained before it can be placed in the same league as the theory of gravity--and you sounded like a preacher in both evolution podcasts.

Evolution has stacks of evidence to support it; so much that it can virtually be considered fact.  Creationism, for one, is a joke because there is zero evidence to support it.  Creationists don't even use the scientific method to determine their viewpoints and rely on verbal logical argument instead.
 

I don't have continual access to internet at the moment--so I have to respond to a lot of people at once.

To the person who said that no scientists disagree with the theory of evolution--umm no. There was a statement signed by 100 scientists, many of whom are quite prominent including a 5times nominated for Nobel Prize biologist who disagree at the Discovery institute.

About moths, you can't have a new species of moth created. Moth is a species by itself--so changing the colour of its wings doesn't change what it is. If all genes for hair except red hair in humans died out because red hair was superior--you still have humans--nothing new. I fully accept microevolution. (The difference between micro and macro is that micro doesn't need mutations, it is changes within a species (i.e. cats becoming better cats by keeping genes that enable them to jump farther or whatever.) But macroevolution would be a cat turning into something else, say a rabbit.

If macroevolution is happening, then there should species clearly in the process of changing to another one. I don't see any animals with partially formed appendages, parts of organs etc. Sure, we have an appendix, but it is fully formed. It is not part of an appendix.

To my comment that it was preachy, I can't listen to audio right now (in coffee shop) but anyway, read my previous comments about the tone of the podcast. Stefan speaks so adoringly of the subject--and unlike most of us, lots of people listen out of sequence. When I started listening, I started on #88--the latest release at the moment, and after listening to #84-#88, then I went back to #1. Sorry. I know listening out of sequence is evil Please forgive me Stefan.

There ARE different species of moth. 

Chimpanzees, humans and gorillas are different species but are all primates.  This is because all these species share similarities, hence the taxonomic link.  All species of moth share similarities too.  So if a moth mutated it would just be a different species of moth.
 

Ronpaulfan:

I don't have continual access to internet at the moment--so I have to respond to a lot of people at once.

To the person who said that no scientists disagree with the theory of evolution--umm no. There was a statement signed by 100 scientists, many of whom are quite prominent including a 5times nominated for Nobel Prize biologist who disagree at the Discovery institute.

 

I'm sorry, but I would be careful about siting the Discovery Institute as a source.  As far as I can understand, it is a group set up to push a religious agenda, i.e. Biblical Creationism in its latest format of Intelligent Design.  I was also listening to a podcast with Eugenie Scott and a group of scientists started a list of scientists named Steve that did agree with Evolution.  They got more than 5,000 signatures (of scientists just named Steve).  Ok, a few fringe people pushing a religious agenda reject evolution and actually not really.  They reject some of the mechanisms, but not all.  They still believe there is some kind of "irreducible complexity," of which basically every example they have come up with has been dissected and explained by evolutionary biologists.  This complexity comes into being because of a designer (God). 

Ronpaulfan:

 

If macroevolution is happening, then there should species clearly in the process of changing to another one. I don't see any animals with partially formed appendages, parts of organs etc. Sure, we have an appendix, but it is fully formed. It is not part of an appendix.

 This argument is completely fallous.  There are whales that are sometimes born with hind leg stubs (leftovers from a previous ancestor).  There are certain animals that are sometimes born with tails.  There are many other examples of this on talkorigins.com and the podcast series I recommended. 

Another question back to you would be evolving into what?  Every organism on the planet is the product of the same period of time of evolution today.  Where does the Duck-billed platipus fit?  Kiwi Bird?  Ring species? As well as many other animals that don't quite fit many of the species-type classification schemes. 

You are wanting to see a species that is part way between a chimpanzee and a human, right?  What if we are that organism?  In any case, the organisms alive today are not evolved from each other.  We are not evolved from chimpanzees.  We both evolved from a common ancestor.  The same goes for every other organism today.  We are all intermediate species of future unknown species.