Why is evolution even still a debate?

[Valjean]

Every experiment and every observation says all changes in all life of all types and every level is sudden. There are no observed gradual changes in life other than your interpretation of the fossil record.

Almost all obsevations say that change is usually gradual. Experiments, for practical reasons, cannot be extended over hundreds of thousands of years, so must be confined to immediate, "sudden" results.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

NO!

Yes.

You are assuming in the first statement that "evolution" is a fact.

Not an assumption.
Speciation is observable. Common ancestry of species is genetic fact.

It is an apparent fact that all current species come from pre-existing species

And that's the fact of evolution.

but when you use the term "evolve" you are assuming the conclusion just like Darwin did.

No.

How evolution occurred, by which mechanism, is a different issue from the mere fact that some type of evolution occurred.

Just like how the fact of gravity is a different issue from the mechanism that underpins it.

Whether or not the theory of gravity (=relativity) is an accurate explanation of the mechanism of gravity, will not be changing the FACT of gravity (=things with mass attract things with mass)

In the exact same way, whether or not the theory of evolution (=descend with modification followed by selection) is an accurate explanation of the mechanism of evolution, will not be changing the FACT that species share ancestry.

This is an observation and apparent fact; it holds true where we've been and where we can see.

And every genome sequenced demonstrates in the exact same observable and apparent way that species share ancestry.

But to extrapolate this to apply everywhere and everywhen even as we don't understand the mechanism is hubris.

The mechanism is a different issue / question from the mere facts.

Let's take another analogy that's perhaps a bit simpler (read: less controversial in your religious mind) to illustrate....

Let's say we find a dead body with a bullet in the head. An autopsy reveals that the bullet was the cause of death. So what we have here, is a dead human where the cause of death was being shot in the head.

Those are the facts.
Now we can try and explain those facts.

Plenty of options. The guy might have killed himself. A burglar might have panicked and shot him. A murderer might have planned it all out and it was actually a pre-planned hit.

Any of these are theories about what happened, about the "mechanism" that lead to a bullet in the dead person's head. Regardless of any of these theories being accurate - it will not be changing the fact that the dude was killed by a gun firing a bullet in the dude's head.


You can resist these simple points as much as you want off course.
But the only thing you'll accomplish is being wrong and exposing your stubborness.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you have experimental evidence (any evidence) for a gradual change then why has nobody ever presented it? Why not just show the evidence and win the argument?

Plenty of people have presented you with exactly that and, just like I predicted, you handwaved them all away in the most ridiculous of ways.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And if that's all the theory was expected to explain, evolution wouldn't still be a theory.

www.notjustatheory.com

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Till Gould came up with his punctuated equilibrium, gradualism was pretty much all we had.
Almost all the evidence we have is gradualistic.

Just to be extra clear here: PE is also gradual.
PE still is all about reproduction with micro changes followed by selection where those micro changes gradually build up to account for large changes over many generations.

PE is about selection pressures, not about how much change "mutations" trigger.

PE states that in times of environmental stability, natural selection will favor the status quo, and thus not much change will happen since natural selection will mostly discard changes and prefer stability.
When the environment changes, the "local optimums" shift and so do selection pressures. Now the status quo is no longer favored and changes will be more likely to be selected for, which means that the gradual build up of these changes will speed up.


I'm sure you know this, but considering the people reading this, I'm guessing many don't know this and thought I'ld state it clearly.

I've already seen plenty of creationists mention PE as if they are presenting an argument against "gradual change". All they accomplish though, is demonstrating that they have no clue what PE actually is about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

People want to believe in "evolution" so they can continue walking over the weak, less evolved, and dispossessed.

Absurd.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Every experiment and every observation says all changes in all life of all types and every level is sudden.

Then it should be easy for you to name a single example.

There are no observed gradual changes in life other than your interpretation of the fossil record.

You mean aside from the fact that every single newborn holds some 60-ish mutations that are past on to offspring?

 

[PureX]

But what would it be, if not a theorems and theory? What other categories are there? Theory is the highest, best supported category science has.

You have to ask the scientism cultists, here, that question. Because they seem to be convinced that science is the fountain of Truth, not of mere relatively functional theories. And they are so convinced of this that they cannot allow for ANY skepticism, whatever. In their mind, science says the theory of evolution is The Truth. End of discussion.

 

[cladking]

Apparently your insecurity leads you to interpret psychologically uncomfortable ideas as insults and slights; as psychic threats.

In the previous post you couldn't be bothered to even say what evidence supports "Evolution" and called me insane and in this you invented a response to other words.

Are you sure your faith in Evolution is unshakeable?

 

[cladking]

Show us your work as an expert. Show us the experts that agree with you. If you can't, then I defer to what experts report, not you as a non-expert.

Experts have all the answers. Homo omnisciencis.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Only to close-minded people.

And/or to people who have experienced abusive relationships.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is a belief. Do you think I should show you the passages in the Bible to demonstrate it? I could do that if you like.

"60 Million years ago is part of the creation period that ended with the creation of man."

Why are you stating this belief in a thread on evolution, which is an evidence-based scientific theory? Why do you believe it??

 

[cladking]

Then it should be easy for you to name a single example.

Jeesh!!! You won't name one and you you want me to specify one after naming them all.

Look at the work done in neuroscience and responses to stimuli. Look at the work done with slime molds and communicating with animals.

I am talking about the interpretation of every single observation and experiment ever done. It is my contention they all singly and collectively support and entirely different paradigm. My job isn't to show how every single one of these supports my argument, YOUR job is to find one single experiment that contradicts my interpretation. Your job is to find evidence and logic that says I am wrong.

We haven't even started this conversation because believers in science refuse to even recognize anything I'm saying. They are too busy insulting and demeaning those with whom they disagree.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is true, in science the idea that there is no God is not accepted, just as the idea that there is a God is not accepted.
What do you think I am wanting to persuade you to see?
If you can't see that your position is based on faith just as mine is that is a blindness in you. I can show you that you are wrong but that is not going to open your eyes to that fact.



You have it back to front, it is atheists who say that science knows about God, not science.
Science it seems does not do proof. Some questions are left open and the existence of God is one.
I come onto forums and atheist scientists tell me that science does not say one way or the other about the existence of God and then other atheists say that science has shown that God does not exist.
I think the latter have changed the naturalistic methodology into a naturalistic metaphysic.
Science has proven that the materialistic view of the universe is true.
I think what you might mean is that science has not found that a supreme being interferes in the affairs of the universe. But that is not proving that a God does not exist.
You leave out the history of God, the reasoning around God, peoples' experiences with God, and the fact that science just presumes that God did not do things. ie science just defines life and consciousness in such a way for example, that it is part of the material universe without the need for spirit.
I speak about OBEs in NDEs and atheists go out of their way to argue that the obvious is not true, because the obvious is what disagrees with their world view.



So a sceptic can say they do not believe in the dragon. Fair enough. I presume this dragon has not done any other things in the past to show it exists, there is no evidence presented except the belief of the person who believes.
But of course for an empiricist that position would entail the rejection of other evidence for God in favour of the presumption of no God.



You have already said you are an empiricist so you are walking science and accept nothing else as evidence. Empiricism is your faith. Naturalistic materialism is a default position for an empiricist when science cannot detect a God. Nothing shows naturalistic materialism to be true except the lack of evidence for the other.
But of course there is evidence for the other that the empiricist rejects.

Why is it that religious-minded people are often seen trying to drag science down to their level (i.e. "faith")? I think it demonstrates much more about your position than that of science. Not to mention that science doesn't require any faith whatsoever, since it is evidence-based.

 

[cladking]

You mean aside from the fact that every single newborn holds some 60-ish mutations that are past on to offspring?

Mutations are always "sudden" and most tend to die out. My contention is all changes in life are sudden and that "species" is an abstraction. Life is always individual and can never be reduced to an abstraction for study. Consciousness is life and consciousness can not even be studied reductionistically until such time as it is defined. Even then consciousness still will not be reduceable.

In order to argue against my theory it will be necessary to understand it. I am not reinventing the wheel here, I am saying that the wheel is not like what we think it is. Just as a wheel operates by isolating systems change in "species" occurs within interdependent systems and changes with them.

 

[cladking]

Almost all obsevations say that change is usually gradual

NAME ONE!!!

Experiments, for practical reasons, cannot be extended over hundreds of thousands of years, so must be confined to immediate, "sudden" results.

...And that is your problem but it is also what led you astray. You assumed that fossils show a gradual change that doesn't exist.

 

[cladking]

How evolution occurred, by which mechanism, is a different issue from the mere fact that some type of evolution occurred.

There is no "evolution". This is the subject of the thread. You are simply repeating what you believe instead of making an argument.

Species change but in no way like we BELIEVE they do.

 

[cladking]

Plenty of people have presented you with exactly that and, just like I predicted, you handwaved them all away in the most ridiculous of ways.

No. They present me with their beliefs and interpretations like a picture of a whale that changed three times. You remember the whale that kept getting shorter legs?

Nobody has yet presented any evidence for a gradual change caused by anything at all.

Though kudos on the e coli experiment. If it were well controlled it could constitute "evidence".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Mutations are always "sudden" and most tend to die out.

That makes no sense.
It's so senseless that I'm not even sure how to respond.

My contention is all changes in life are sudden and that "species" is an abstraction.

Well, "species" is indeed an abstraction. Some sort of "snapshot" of the current state of life on this planet. This is why it's quite hard to tell where a species ends and another begins. Which, ironically, is exactly what we expect from a process of gradual change.

Kind of like how it is quite impossible to tell when "latin" turned into "spanish", eventhough they are clearly distinct languages. The ancient ancestors of spanish speaking folk, spoke latin.
Yet no latin speaking mother ever raised a spanish speaking child.
Every kid ever raised, spoke the same language as its parents and peers.

And yet, over the course of little over 1500 years, latin turned into spanish.

Life is always individual and can never be reduced to an abstraction for study. Consciousness is life and consciousness can not even be studied reductionistically until such time as it is defined. Even then consciousness still will not be reduceable.

Word salad.
Please reformulate in a way that makes a speck of sense.

In order to argue against my theory

What "theory"?

it will be necessary to understand it

A prerequisite for that is you being able to explain it without resorting to pure word salad.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You said:

Every experiment and every observation says all changes in all life of all types and every level is sudden.

Look at the work done in neuroscience and responses to stimuli. Look at the work done with slime molds and communicating with animals.

How do these things show that "all changes in all life of all types and every level is sudden"?

I am talking about the interpretation of every single observation and experiment ever done. It is my contention they all singly and collectively support and entirely different paradigm. My job isn't to show how every single one of these supports my argument,

Your job is to provide support for your claims.
And I didn't ask you to name "all of them".

I asked you to give a single example that demonstrates that "all changes in all life of all types and every level is sudden".

So show me an instance of "sudden change".

I once showed you 3 transitional whale fossils seperated by millions of years showing how feet became flippers.

You claimed that those showed "sudden change" for some reason.
So, can you give me an example of a land mammal with feet that gives birth to a sea mammal with flippers which in turn gives rise to a completely new species of sea mammals? Or something similar to that?

YOUR job is to find one single experiment that contradicts my interpretation.

Blatant shifting of the burden of proof.

Your job is to find evidence and logic that says I am wrong.

No. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim - which is you.
When you fail to meet your burden of proof, I don't have to anything. Then I can dismiss your claim at face value - because what is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence

We haven't even started this conversation because believers in science refuse to even recognize anything I'm saying. They are too busy insulting and demeaning those with whom they disagree.

Why would anyone recognize what you are saying, when what you are saying:
- goes against everything we actually know from science
- is nothing but bare assertion
- has no supportive evidence whatsoever


Contrary to what you seem to believe, when you make claims - you have a burden of proof.
Asking us to falsify your nonsense instead, is blatantly shifting that burden of proof.

That, in and of itself, is already enough to dismiss your claims.