Explain Why You Don't Accept Biological Evolution as a Fact

[Mavorpen]

You think IQ tests measure intelligence? That's hilarious.

no, tell me why test developed by specialist in fields on that matter and that have been revewied by others to approve of them or disaprove dont do what they are made to do.

Intelligence is an abstract and broad concept that doesn't have a clear definition agreed upon by most researchers. IQ tests aren't meant to measure intelligence, they measure specific cognitive functions that are tied to it.

No serious researcher honestly believes IQ tests accurately measure intelligence. Even the creator stated this application is bullshit.

“The scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure of the intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured.”

[Warda]

no, tell me why test developed by specialist in fields on that matter and that have been revewied by others to approve of them or disaprove dont do what they are made to do.

Could you please use proper spelling and grammar so that what you're trying to convey is at least somewhat understandable?

could you answer my question?

[Athylon Prime]

i dont rember saying that was i was refering to, i meant the orginal post and thread title.

I never called anybody out. I merely asked them to explain themselves. I forced nobodies hand.

i dont remeber grammar being on any iq test ive ever taken.

[Tlaceceyaya]

i dont remeber grammar being on any iq test ive ever taken.

You think IQ tests measure intelligence? That's hilarious.

They do, but only certain facets of it. And they serve as a general indicator of intelligence — the people who score low tend to be less intelligent, and those who score higher tend to be more intelligent.

[Republic of Greater America]

You know exactly what I'm talking about. No scientific evidence of anything from the Lie-ble, complete with its numerous fantasies of 1,000 year old men, the idea that everyone comes from one man and one woman, because we don't need to know how everyone else came from (hint hint, according to the Bible, we are all inbred), and a flood that kills everyone except for a family, who repopulate the Earth. Again, how do they do this (assuming that they don't inbreed with each other), and an old man splitting across two continental landmasses. Go on, read some fairy tales, and this time, think about how it is scientifically and rationally possible, so no, magic man swoops down from the sky and fixes our problems, okay?

ok ok
1. the torah was written 2400 years ago
2. the bible was written less than 2000
3. the romans had running water systems
4. for their time period the romans had pretty good standards
5. um, no tell me more about how the civilzation that performed surgries that where not done again for another thousands years had no medical science
6. i dont understand how you can have no tech
7. the bible was written during pax romana
8. if you lived to the age of 10 your life exp was around 68 (death during birth was common until the 1900s)
9. there is a genetic adam and eve

1 and 2. Big difference. People were still illiterate.
3 and 4. Last time I checked, the Romans did not write the Torah or Bible. Illiterate farmers in the Middle East did so.
5. Refer to numbers 3&4.
6. I mean, no medical technology, women dying in childbirth in massive amounts, brutal wars, no universal education, and all in all, a hard and uncomfortable life.
7. Okay. The Romans still did not write the Bible.
8. And why should it be okay that children from birth to 9 were dying in large amounts. When 30% of your children live to the age of 10, there IS something wrong, and that something wrong is a lack of technology.
9. You are right, but genetic Adam and Eve did not mate with each other and lived thousands upon thousands of years apart. They would have never lived in the same time period, let alone meeting each other and making a baby.

[Wolfmanne]

Could you please use proper spelling and grammar so that what you're trying to convey is at least somewhat understandable?

could you answer my question?

The problem is that I can barely get through your question because I can't understand what it means.

[Mavorpen]

You think IQ tests measure intelligence? That's hilarious.

They do, but only certain facets of it. And they serve as a general indicator of intelligence — the people who score low tend to be less intelligent, and those who score higher tend to be more intelligent.

I'm not sure why this is contradictory to my statement.

[Avenio]

no, tell me why test developed by specialist in fields on that matter and that have been revewied by others to approve of them or disaprove dont do what they are made to do.

That's not what IQ was 'meant to do'. IQ tests were created as an attempt by a group of French psychologists to diagnose and select for what we would now call learning disabilities and/or cognitive defects. It was never an attempt to quantify intelligence - rather, it was meant to single out people that did poorly on the tests for further scrutiny by doctors and psychologists.

[Anachronous Rex]

I've not read the rest of the thread but I will pose two critiques

1 Abiogenesis -how did the random assemblage of primodial chemicals spark into life?

Evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origin of life. It's a bit like complaining that gravity doesn't explain how the universe began.

2 What evidence is that for evolution of new genera from previous genera let alone new order/phylum? Ie evolution posits that cats and dogs have a common ancestor as do humans and dogs, far enough back humans and mushrooms are related, but where is that evidence?

In your cells. You're both Eukaryotes.

I'm not a christian creationist but theistic evolution and the theory of kinds seems to be as plausible as humans and protozoa having a coomon ancestor.

Your 'theory' explains everything by explaining nothing.

Microevolution ie the adaption of new traits to make new subspecies just doesnt cut it as justifying macroevolution afterall the liger shows that lions and tigers are adaptions of the same 'kind', even homo saps, neanderthals and denisovans appear to be merely interfertile sub species rather than new species...

This is not a dog:

So what "kind" of animal is it?

What are "kinds" exactly? Be specific. How do you tell if something is the same "kind" or a different "kind?"

[Warda]

no, tell me why test developed by specialist in fields on that matter and that have been revewied by others to approve of them or disaprove dont do what they are made to do.

Intelligence is an abstract and broad concept that doesn't have a clear definition agreed upon by most researchers. IQ tests aren't meant to measure intelligence, they measure specific cognitive functions that are tied to it.

No serious researcher honestly believes IQ tests accurately measure intelligence. Even the creator stated this application is bullshit.

“The scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure of the intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured.”

thats why there is tests designed to measure the different areas of intelligence. i understand that they arent perfect. however to deny them as the best current way to measure intelligence is silly. by your own argument my lack of grammar should have no indacation of my intelligence, because how could you know what area i most specialized in?

[Mavorpen]

however to deny them as the best current way to measure intelligence is silly.

Of course they aren't the best way to measure intelligence. Like I just said, they don't measure intelligence, they only provide general indicators of it.

[Sociobiology]

I've not read the rest of the thread but I will pose two critiques

1 Abiogenesis -how did the random assemblage of primodial chemicals spark into life?

like this

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5918/1229.abstract

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/RNA_world_hypothesis.html

2 What evidence is that for evolution of new genera from previous genera let alone new order/phylum?

fossils and genetics
do you even know how classification works, the difference between two phylum at there point of divergence is literally the difference between you and your brother. it is only when all the organisms between are dead they look distinct.

Ie evolution posits that cats and dogs have a common ancestor as do humans and dogs, far enough back humans and mushrooms are related, but where is that evidence?

a clear pattern in the variability in DNA across all organisms, abundant fossil evidence of changes in body plan, environment, and population over time, and the fact we can literally make evolution happen in a lab.

I'm not a christian creationist but theistic evolution and the theory of kinds seems to be as plausible as humans and protozoa having a coomon ancestor.

only because you don't know anything about biology.
the Bulls fighting the Cubs in the Superbowl makes sense to someone who knows nothing about sports.


Microevolution ie the adaption of new traits to make new subspecies just doesnt cut it as justifying macroevolution

only if you think being able to walk a miles means you can't walk across the continent, or that a sapling growing from a tree has nothing to do with a growing a tree.
the process is exactly the same all that differs is how long you let it run.

afterall the liger shows that lions and tigers are adaptions of the same 'kind', even homo saps, neanderthals and denisovans appear to be merely interfertile sub species rather than new species...

define "kind" because it has no biological meaning, and species is not a concrete distinction many things that can't interbreed are the same species and many things that can interbreed are not the same species.
see ring species

speciation is a continuous process, you cant draw a distinct line, the only reason we get away with drawing lines is because almost all the animals that have ever lived are dead, so they get ignored by laymen.
Also Denisovans and Neanderthals contributed to the modern human genome.

[Warda]

no, tell me why test developed by specialist in fields on that matter and that have been revewied by others to approve of them or disaprove dont do what they are made to do.

That's not what IQ was 'meant to do'. IQ tests were created as an attempt by a group of French psychologists to diagnose and select for what we would now call learning disabilities and/or cognitive defects. It was never an attempt to quantify intelligence - rather, it was meant to single out people that did poorly on the tests for further scrutiny by doctors and psychologists.

the originals, not current ones.

[Wolfmanne]

Well, this was certainly interesting, but I'm going to go now. Glad we were all able to have a reasonable discussion.

[Sociobiology]

i dont remeber grammar being on any iq test ive ever taken.

You think IQ tests measure intelligence? That's hilarious.

in the same way a flight simulator can test your ability to be a good pilot...

[Chinese Regions]

And we have more than enough evidence that we can put all the pieces of evidence together as proof.

viewtopic.php?p=11560697#p11560697
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=254663&p=15799474#p15799474

The Miller Ulrey experiment was an experiment designed to simulate the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. It created amino acids....it didn't however, produce life.

Until you produce life with such an experiment, I've no choice but to assume that abiogenesis didn't occur.

Purden of proof is on you to prove to me that life can be created through those means.

Meow purr, purrr

[Vitaphone Racing]

The subject is really self-explanatory. I am legitimately curious as to why some people don't believe evolution has happened and is still happening. It astounds me that, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, there are people who write off evolution as just merely pseudoscience. I understand if you don't want to post in this thread, not wanting to get flamed or baited, but if you're willing to out yourself, please explain to me the reasoning behind your belief.

Because people don't like accepting things which
1) they themselves can't actually understand
2) conflict with their beliefs, no matter how slightly
3) they've already argued against would mean they'd have to admit they're wrong.

I'm sort of astounded that you're astounded by this because I see people reject an evidenced explanation in favour of a bullshit theory they'd like to believe on a daily basis.

[Chinese Regions]

If you seriously think correcting you when you make a wrong claim is calling you stupid, why are you on this forum?

i dont rember saying that was i was refering to, i meant the orginal post and thread title.

So, I'm an elitist for starting a thread out of pure curiosity? That is most definitely a non sequitur. You also just admitted to trolling, which if you were trying to prove a point with it, you failed miserably. Now, just because you're grammar hurts me, let's spell it together. Intelligence.
Intelligence
Intelligence
And no, the irony was not lost on me.

i dont remeber grammar being on any iq test ive ever taken.

Good thing it isn't just your grammar that's wrong.

[Mavorpen]

You think IQ tests measure intelligence? That's hilarious.

in the same way a flight simulator can test your ability to be a good pilot...

I performed pretty well in Apache: Air Assault. When do I get my license?

[Chinese Regions]

I can't believe there are still people on NS that doubt evolution.

[Warda]

in the same way a flight simulator can test your ability to be a good pilot...

I performed pretty well in Apache: Air Assault. When do I get my license?

try il2 1946 on very hard mode. then we can talk

[Vitaphone Racing]

in the same way a flight simulator can test your ability to be a good pilot...

I performed pretty well in Apache: Air Assault. When do I get my license?

Send passport photos and $50 to apachelicences@hotmail.com and I'll hook you up.

[Trotskylvania]

The subject is really self-explanatory. I am legitimately curious as to why some people don't believe evolution has happened and is still happening. It astounds me that, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, there are people who write off evolution as just merely pseudoscience. I understand if you don't want to post in this thread, not wanting to get flamed or baited, but if you're willing to out yourself, please explain to me the reasoning behind your belief.

There's no proof for it, only evidence.

Yes, but to make a big deal about this semantic difference is pointless. Science doesn't deal with proofs, it deals with gather empirical evidence, and testing hypotheses to form explanatory and predictive theories about phenomenon. And of those theories, evolution is one of the most well understood and best supported. It is an unavoidable consequences of a life system based upon coding molecules such as DNA. Not only does it happen, it has to happen and nothing can stop it from having short of termination.

[New Libertarian States]

in the same way a flight simulator can test your ability to be a good pilot...

I performed pretty well in Apache: Air Assault. When do I get my license?

Tomorrow.
*nods*

[Warda]

I can't believe there are still people on NS that doubt evolution.

i dont. i believe in a completely natural occuring evolutionary process, with no outside help.