Irony of the evolutionary belief

[TagliatelliMonster]

None of that has been independently examined or evaluated, so it's a false religion in my view.

Another example of baseless & dishonest handwaving.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The probability of a FT universe: according to Roger Penrose

this is a number with 1123 ceros after the decimal point

You quote this as if it is set in stone. As if it is fact.
Penrose himself doesn't even say such and instead puts a bazillion question marks around it and notes that there is far too much we don't understand yet.

Furthermore, you seem to be misrepresenting it as well.
I looked up the text this is mentioned it. Nowhere does it even mention "fine tuning". Instead it talks about a calculation concerning all the potential quantum states of every particle in today's universe in context of entropy.

As for the rest, I think enough people have already answered your drivel.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Really, you don’t see the difference?

No.
It's natural processes that at some point end up creating a shape that falls in a pattern in which we "see" something.

….. Of all the possible combinations clouds could have, there are much more combinations that would look like something that modeless looks like a rabbit, than combinations that would produce meaningful words and sentences.

This is why nobody would conclude design with that “rabbit” but everybody would conclude design if instead we observe words and sentences in the sky.

Well, call me when you have an actual example of such and then we can evaluate it.
I don't see the point in continuing to discuss this bizar hypothetical.

Íll repeat, in order for stars or clouds to naturally form meaningful words and sentences, the initial conditions have to be very very very FT……………….this is why normal people with normal standards would conclude design every time the see meangfull words and sentences.

Cool. Nice claim.
Poke me when you have an example of such and then we can discuss it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

this is your origianl comment
´´I'ld be more impressed if we found ourselves in a universe that doesn't have life permitting values."

please expalin your point, I don’t want to *guess* and refute your point , because if I do that you will simply wash your hands and say “starwman”


Or is keeping your point vague and ambiguous part of a dishonest debate tactic?

I think the statement is pretty self-explanatory.

 

[leroy]

Do you not know what it is and how it fits into the ToE?

Why cant you amswer directly

Are you affirming PE?

The answer to your question to me is yes

 

[leroy]

Because that statement in itself demonstrates an ignorance of the theory and it's evidence.
You are a lousy judge, get an education so that you know what the ToE is.

The fact that you responded with personal attacks rather than with evidence shows that my argument is pretty good

 

[leroy]

Because you are a creationist and bringing creationist nonsense to the table. We are responding. You don’t seem able or willing to understand.

Why would your anti-science comments be something the well educated would agree with? The only reason that a person will post comments inconsistent with science is because they have some motivation that isn’t knowledge.


More data and evidence doesn’t harm evolution. In 150 years it’s only helped evolution become a more certain explanation. Science becomes more accurate over time.


Because you have an ideological prejudice against science. We know it. Why don’t you?

Ok you didn't address my points.....just personal attacks .... this means that my arguments where good

 

[leroy]

Sorry but that was a lame attempt a defending the indefensible. The Elephant in the room says, there should more transitional fossils than fully evolved

Agree.

But despite the fact we all know what you mean.... in this forum is better not to use the term " fully evolved " otherwise you will have to deal with 100+ post of semantics and word games.

ones but the Elephant says no we have millions of those which damn the theory and no supporting fossils. That blows the theory right out of the water right there

Fossils will always be a secondary issue (my opinion) any problema with the fossil record would be insignificant compared to other lines of evidence like genetics.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sorry but that was a lame attempt a defending the indefensible. The Elephant in the room says, there should more transitional fossils than fully evolved ones

There's no such thing as a "fully evolved fossil". That's not a thing. All fossils, just as with all lifeforms, are transitional.

but the Elephant says no we have millions of those which damn the theory and no supporting fossils. That blows the theory right out of the water right there

You clearly don't understand what the theory says if you genuinely believe that.

Do you want me to explain?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Agree.

But despite the fact we all know what you mean.... in this forum is better not to use the term " fully evolved " otherwise you will have to deal with 100+ post of semantics and word games.

Are you serious?

You've been on this forum for years, and you still don't understand even basic facts about evolutionary theory and how it works, to the extent that you genuinely believe there is some magical distinction between "transitional" and "fully evolved" forms?

Anyone who actually thinks that cannot possibly understand even the basics of what evolutionary theory states. It's a basic, fundamental error.

Do you seriously need this explained to you?

 

[leroy]

Are you serious?

You've been on this forum for years, and you still don't understand even basic facts about evolutionary theory and how it works, to the extent that you genuinely believe there is some magical distinction between "transitional" and "fully evolved" forms?

Anyone who actually thinks that cannot possibly understand even the basics of what evolutionary theory states. It's a basic, fundamental error.

Do you seriously need this explained to you?

You see @Charles Philips that was my point.


This fanatic extremest atheist instead of addressing the actual point.... he prefered to have a long and boring discussion on semantics.


This is why you should avoid terms like "fully evolved", despite the fact we all know what you mean, fanatic atheist will neat pick in semantics rather than addressing your acctual point.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why cant you amswer directly

Are you affirming PE?

The answer to your question to me is yes

Off course PE is a thing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You see @Charles Philips that was my point.


This fanatic extremest atheist instead of addressing the actual point.... he prefered to have a long and boring discussion on semantics.

Literally, four sentences. Reading must be very difficult for you if FOUR SENTENCES is a "long and boring discussion". And they were also true, and nothing to do with semantics.

If you genuinely believe there is such a thing as a "non-transitional fossil" then you don't understand what evolutionary theory is or says.

This is why you should avoid terms like "fully evolved", despite the fact we all know what you mean, fanatic atheist will neat pick in semantics rather than addressing your acctual point.

Okay then. What does the term "fully evolved" mean? Please tell me the methodology applied to distinguish "fully evolved" from "transitional" forms.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Elephant in the room says, there should more transitional fossils than fully evolved ones

The only elephant in the room here, is how your statement exposes your ignorance on the subject you seem hellbend on arguing against.
Your statement implies that a transitional is not "fully evolved". This is ridiculous.

All species are "fully" evolved. A transitional fossil is not a "half evolved" creature. There is no such thing.
Every organism is a "complete" organism. The "transitional" part of "transitional fossil" does not mean that it is not "complete". There is no such thing as "not complete" in biology.

Tiktaalik for example is a wonderful transitional fossil. It is transitional because it has both fish traits as well as land crawler traits. It exhibits the transition from sea-life to land life. But it is not "half a fish". Nor is it "half a tetrapod". It is a "complete" creature, a member of a species population that lived at that time.
If it would live today, nobody would consider it "half evolved".

You should learn what a transitional actually is.

but the Elephant says no we have millions of those which damn the theory and no supporting fossils.

False. The problem here is that you apparently don't understand what a transitional fossil is.
If you posit that a transitional is a "half organism" or "half evolved", then indeed, there are no transitional fossils.

But when evolutionary biologists / paleontologist use that term, that is not what they mean by it.
As usual, this is the sort of nonsense you end up with when you get your science intel from dishonest pseudo science creationist sources.

That blows the theory right out of the water right there

No. At best, it blows a strawmen out of the water.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Agree.

But despite the fact we all know what you mean.... in this forum is better not to use the term " fully evolved " otherwise you will have to deal with 100+ post of semantics and word games.

Pointing out a strawman is not arguing "semantics". It is correcting a misunderstanding.

Fossils will always be a secondary issue (my opinion) any problema with the fossil record would be insignificant compared to other lines of evidence like genetics.

There is no problem with the fossil record.
Would it be cool to have more of them? Sure. But the earth doesn't owe us any fossils. Fossilization is very rare. And when it happens, we still need to find them also. We are lucky to have as many as we have.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This fanatic extremest atheist

instead of addressing the actual point.... he prefered to have a long and boring discussion on semantics.

He did address the actual point.
He did it by correcting a strawman.
Correcting strawmen is not "arguing semantics".

It's fundamentally wrong to think about any species or fossil as "half-evolved" or "not fully evolved".
It is indicative of an extreme lack of understanding of how evolution works.

There is no such thing as "not fully evolved".

Are a penguin's wings "not fully evolved"?
Is a penguin a "half evolved bird"?

This is why you should avoid terms like "fully evolved", despite the fact we all know what you mean

Do we? I'm not sure we do. Somebody who understands evolution would never say such a thing.
And if we put his comment into context of all the other posts he made, we can be quite sure that he doesn't mean what you are implying he means.

, fanatic atheist will neat pick in semantics rather than addressing your acctual point.

"fanatic atheists". Lol.

As if evolution theory is exclusive to atheism.
You crack me up sometimes.

 

[Pogo]

You see @Charles Philips that was my point.


This fanatic extremest atheist instead of addressing the actual point.... he prefered to have a long and boring discussion on semantics.


This is why you should avoid terms like "fully evolved", despite the fact we all know what you mean, fanatic atheist will neat pick in semantics rather than addressing your acctual point.

It is not semantics it is ignorance, fully evolved is not a concept in evolution.
This image is from when creationists started this nonsense.

everything on earth is just as evolved as everything else.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Now what you are saying does not make sense. If a "believer" accepts the theory of evolution, and -- goes to church or other houses of worship that use the Bible as a foundation piece, then yes -- the two ideas -- creation and evolution are in direct contradiction to one another.

The Catholic church is the most populous, and:-

The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six-day, twenty-four-hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God. Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his creation, that Adam and Eve were real people, and that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual.
Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church - Wikipedia

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This sounds rather Calvinistic to me....

I'm sure there is a baseless claim that resolves the conundrum. But sometimes no response can be as much an indicator as getting a response. Something I keep in mind.

I'll have to look into the Calvinist similarity.

 

[wellwisher]

Take for example all the intermediates between land and flying mammals...... Consider all the transitional species + the evolutionary dead ends.

Isn't it strange and unpredicted that few if any intermediate fossils have been found ?

Both flying and land mammals are common in the fossil record .... So what makes the intermediates so scare?

The answer is we don't know, but this is not a big of a deal. We still have strong evidence for evolution........if you would suggest a different answer please share it.

This gray area is connected to the religious nature of the black box and dice and cards science theory; evolution. Such theories have no accountably, and can align with politics, which uses the same math. For example, COVID science was led by politics, which then spooked half the masses, as a way to force conformity; protect children from the bogeyman. Lack of accountability for black box theory, is why parents cannot sue the state for harming their children. The black box did it and humans simply follow the orders; plausible deniability.

If Einstein's theory of relativity was tested and it did not produce as expected, even once, it would be back to the drawing board. It would be open season for new and improved theory and ideas. This would be welcome. But black box theory, like evolution, never loses, even when it falls short, since the gaming house always wins. If you wish to gamble you have to go there.

The lack of hard fossil evidence, in a transitional area of the evolutionary theory, has no lasting impact on this black box theory. You can still pretend all is fine and nobody is allowed to postulate anything new or better. That will still make you a denier. The transitional limitation of data would kill a rational theory. Evolution cannot make predictions in a quantitative way. It is more qualitative and subjective; consensus of opinions where any opinion is good and consensus of opinion becomes law. This is modeled on religion.

The lack of predictive value is the doom standard for rational theory, but has no impact on black box theory. This hands off effects, is like a religious prestige; black box mystery, that allows it to survive even with very weak evidence standards. These lower standards are not good for science, but are great for politics. How many Liberals disagree with evolution? We have a religious war, separated by a political divide; nebulous pseudo-religion mass mind effect.

My guess is the lack of fossils, between land and flying animals is due to these transitional critters, becoming much more vulnerable to predators; predators eat the sick and young first. These transitional critters are connected to the dark side of the random mutation theory, where more things can go wrong, than right, if we assume random changes on the DNA, as defined by casino math. Big wings that do not work, suddenly showing up, will slow down a land animal, while its big useless wings trying to fly away, will say "eat at Joe's", making it easier to be hunted. Fossils of eaten animals are less able to survive in tact. The black box of evolution, taking to its implied limit, is very cruel. The theory fixates on natural selection but not all the natural attrition; duds, which is also implied, but removed from the fossil data, by being eating.

Flightless birds have fossils, since they retain more solid land characteristics. They are out of the transitional testing area of wing designs. More can go wrong, than right, with a random mutation model for generic change as defined by dice and cards. Luckily, nature loads the dice, which results in fewer transitional fossil blunders; long diseased and then dead branches. We rarely see traditional fossils, since the species dice stay loaded, within tighter defined states. In Creationism, it is assumed the plants and animals are in loaded dice steady states, where chaos is under control; each to their kind. I like that thinking better, since it makes for a more rational science theory.

The DNA is like the hard drive of a cell. It is not the CPU or central processing unit. The proof of this is when the mother cell duplicates the DNA, and the DNA has to be taken offline. How can the DNA lead, when it is taken off line to be duplicated, and then packed away as condensed chromosomes ? The mother cell is still in motion even with the DNA all bundled up. The DNA hard drive is being duplicated and separated into two by another or the main CPU, via processes stemming from the mother board. The easiest way to do this is via a water-organic-ionic equilibria, where the protein grid; everything but the DNA, including in-out, synthesis and scaffolding dynamics, creates a dynamic equilibrium global water potential, that the DNA hard drive sees; shape shifting; mutations, spell checkers and editorial discretion.

Since the entropy of the universe has to increase, and since entropy is a state variable, meaning for any given state of matter there is a fixed amount of entropy, stable changes; species, involve quantum steps upward; 2nd law increase, into the next higher stable entropic states. If the step is short, problems will arise. If it makes the full step, there is stability in the hard drive; species with loaded DNA dice.

This is evolution with a goal in mind, connected to the 2nd law increase. Entropy has to increase, but for life, this increases needs to occur in global quantum steps due to integration of so many parts; e pluribus unum. This is still about evolution, but without the dice and cards, so it can stay rational and have accountability that frees up the creative minds.