A Disproof of Evolution Disprovers

[Heyo]

I thought science had all the answers. They act like they can explain every detail of evolution. Now you say they cannot even tell what species an animal is. I have definiately learned something. Science only thinks they know everything. I wish the others on here could learn that.

I have offered a 101 on science and evolution, especially for creationists but my only pupil buggered out before the end of the first lesson.
As for scientists knowing everything, it looks like that to someone who knows nothing but scientists are very reluctant to declare that they do know something. But when they do, they are very sure about it.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Millions of years ago there was a population of animals that did not have the genetic makeup of (M. Gigan.). Over millions of years they slowly changed and adapted but not one had the genetic makeup of (M. Gigan.). Then a young one was born that had adapted a little more and did have the genetic makeup of (M. Gigan.). Unfortunately when it was a week old it was eaten by a wild dingo and left no offspring. A million years passed before another youngster was born that had the same genetic makeup. I do not want anyone to name it or touch it or wipe its backside or say who its parents were or in any other way identify it. That youngster that lived only a week was the FIRST animal in all history that had the genetic makeup of (M. Gigan.) That's all. There had to be a FIRST.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I have offered a 101 on science and evolution, especially for creationists but my only pupil buggered out before the end of the first lesson.
As for scientists knowing everything, it looks like that to someone who knows nothing but scientists are very reluctant to declare that they do know something. But when they do, they are very sure about it.

Rationator said in post 227 that science "cannot be completely exact about" identifying the species of an animal. That sounds like something that would be important to know if you are trying to say how one species evolved."We don't know what species this is but it evolved into this other species that we also can't identify" does not sound very scientific.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Rationator said in post 227 that science "cannot be completely exact about" identifying the species of an animal. That sounds like something that would be important to know if you are trying to say how one species evolved."We don't know what species this is but it evolved into this other species that we also can't identify" does not sound very scientific.

If you actually took the time to understand how evolution works, or read any of the posts presented to you, you'd understand why that is.
Instead, you're misinterpreting it as meaning something that it doesn't.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

If you actually took the time to understand how evolution works, or read any of the posts presented to you, you'd understand why that is.
Instead, you're misinterpreting it as meaning something that it doesn't.

I interpret it as meaning animals changed and adapted over long periods of time. But somewhere in that long period of time there was a change that had never occurred before. And one animal had to be the first to show that change.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I interpret it as meaning animals changed and adapted over long periods of time. But somewhere in that long period of time there was a change that had never occurred before. And one animal had to be the first to show that change.

Repeating the same thing for the umpteenth time isn't going to help you.

 

[Heyo]

Rationator said in post 227 that science "cannot be completely exact about" identifying the species of an animal. That sounds like something that would be important to know if you are trying to say how one species evolved."We don't know what species this is but it evolved into this other species that we also can't identify" does not sound very scientific.

Remember that red 2 blue example from post #190? While we are pretty sure that the last line is blue and the first is red, there is always some doubt in between. Disregarding that doubt and proclaiming knowledge would be wrong and unscientific. Of course we can speak of different species where we are 98.8 % sure there is a difference.

 

[ratiocinator]

Rationator said in post 227 that science "cannot be completely exact about" identifying the species of an animal.

Not exactly what I said but you do understand that a species is a convenient human-made classification system, don't you? It works reasonably well with extant populations because they tend to be reasonably distinct - however, yet again for you to totally ignore, see ring species.

It also works reasonably well for the fossil record but only because it is patchy (fossilisation is very rare). If we actually had examples from pretty much every tiny change, the system would become arbitrary at best.

That sounds like something that would be important to know if you are trying to say how one species evolved.

It may sound like that to you but only because you seem to be stubbornly refusing to actually learn how it happens.

We don't know what species this is but it evolved into this other species that we also can't identify" does not sound very scientific.

A parody that demonstrates nothing but your own confusions and apparently self-inflicted ignorance. It's not as if it hasn't been explained to you in many different ways by different people using all sorts of analogies. To go back to mine (that you ignored) in #193, we can certainly say that elderly people exist and that young people exist, but we can't sensibly say on what second in somebody's life they cease to be young or at what second they start to be elderly. Any such classification to that precision would be entirely arbitrary.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Repeating the same thing for the umpteenth time isn't going to help you.

So you are saying that no animal ever showed a change? Then how did change occur? It had to start with someone.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Remember that red 2 blue example from post #190? While we are pretty sure that the last line is blue and the first is red, there is always some doubt in between. Disregarding that doubt and proclaiming knowledge would be wrong and unscientific. Of course we can speak of different species where we are 98.8 % sure there is a difference.

Would you go as far as 98.7 percent?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Not exactly what I said but you do understand that a species is a convenient human-made classification system, don't you? It works reasonably well with extant populations because they tend to be reasonably distinct - however, yet again for you to totally ignore, see ring species.

It also works reasonably well for the fossil record but only because it is patchy (fossilisation is very rare). If we actually had examples from pretty much every tiny change, the system would become arbitrary at best.



It may sound like that to you but only because you seem to be stubbornly refusing to actually learn how it happens.



A parody that demonstrates nothing but your own confusions and apparently self-inflicted ignorance. It's not as if it hasn't been explained to you in many different ways by different people using all sorts of analogies. To go back to mine (that you ignored) in #193, we can certainly say that elderly people exist and that young people exist, but we can't sensibly say on what second in somebody's life they cease to be young or at what second they start to be elderly. Any such classification to that precision would be entirely arbitrary.

I see you said twice that science works "reasonably well". So there is room for error. If no animal ever showed a change then no change ever occurred and thus nothing evolved.

 

[ratiocinator]

I see you said twice that science works "reasonably well".

No, I didn't. I said a human-made classification system works reasonably well.

So there is room for error.

No room for error in what?

If no animal ever showed a change then no change ever occurred and thus nothing evolved.

Yet again: individual animals don't evolve - populations do. Every single individual shows change from its parents, every single individual has some mutations. Sometimes said mutations aid survival and spread through the population. Over long periods small changes add up to large ones.

What's so hard? Go back to the analogy in #193. People don't age significantly in one second, so, according to what passes as your 'reasoning', a young person can never turn into and old person.

 

[Heyo]

Would you go as far as 98.7 percent?

No. There has to be an exact limit that can't be negotiated. ;-)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Just thought, at this point in our little colloquy, that it would be interesting to read a quote from Charles Darwin himself, to wit:

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

No. There has to be an exact limit that can't be negotiated. ;-)

Makes me think of a great science joke. Two scientists just made an amazing new discovery. One says, "I would say we are 98.8% sure of this so we should publish the results". The other answers, " I think we are only 98.7 % sure so we better wait til we get more data".

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

No, I didn't. I said a human-made classification system works reasonably well.



No room for error in what?



Yet again: individual animals don't evolve - populations do. Every single individual shows change from its parents, every single individual has some mutations. Sometimes said mutations aid survival and spread through the population. Over long periods small changes add up to large ones.

What's so hard? Go back to the analogy in #193. People don't age significantly in one second, so, according to what passes as your 'reasoning', a young person can never turn into and old person.

Can't anyone see that every animal in a population does not change at the same time? Evolution takes time. If there are a million animals in a population and they produce 1000 offspring, all of those 1000 do not have the same mutations. Isn't that what evolution is? But out of that 1000 maybe one has a certain mutation that is passed on. Isn't that evolution? But that one individual was the first to have that mutation. One individual cahnged first and ove years the rest of the population also changed. Everyone is so busy trying to prove someone wrong that they cannot see this simple truth. One animal in the population was the first to change. All million did not change at the same time. That is evolution.

 

[Faithofchristian]

So you're cool with evolution being taught, and OK with Islamic invocations before public meetings/High School football games, etc. Good to know.

They might, seeing as how religious fanatics continuously try to inflict their mere beliefs in ancient middle eastern deities upon the public at large. 10 Commandments in court houses, prayers before sessions of congress, etc...

See above.


Again, see above.

Given that this is in the evolution/creationism forum, I have this question: Are you equating those who accept the scientific evidence supporting evolution and deep time with atheism? Because the majority of Christians (other than fundamentalists) accept the science and still believe in God and in a divine hand in creation. How many Christians have said something like "God is who, evolution is how."

Look I was referring to atheist..going about arguing about a God that they don't believe in..
Now does that make sense to you.
Why argue over something that you don't believe in..that's foolishness.
If I was to argue over anything it sure wouldn't be over something I don't believe in that's for sure..

 

[Faithofchristian]

So you're cool with evolution being taught, and OK with Islamic invocations before public meetings/High School football games, etc. Good to know.

They might, seeing as how religious fanatics continuously try to inflict their mere beliefs in ancient middle eastern deities upon the public at large. 10 Commandments in court houses, prayers before sessions of congress, etc...

See above.


Again, see above.

You need really read again what I said..
I said in referring to atheists why argue over something that you don't believe in.
That's just foolishness to argue over something that you don't believe in...
If I don't believe in something I'm sure not going to argue with anyone over something that I don't believe in that's for sure...

 

[ratiocinator]

Can't anyone see that every animal in a population does not change at the same time? Evolution takes time. If there are a million animals in a population and they produce 1000 offspring, all of those 1000 do not have the same mutations. Isn't that what evolution is? But out of that 1000 maybe one has a certain mutation that is passed on. Isn't that evolution? But that one individual was the first to have that mutation. One individual cahnged first and ove years the rest of the population also changed. Everyone is so busy trying to prove someone wrong that they cannot see this simple truth. One animal in the population was the first to change. All million did not change at the same time. That is evolution.

I really don't know how to make this any more simple. You are not going to get a change from one species to another or to "the first one" of a species through one mutation, any more than a person becomes elderly at one specific second of their life.

Every single individual has mutations, so if you're going to try to define the genome of a certain species with enough precision to identify a first individual, then you are likely to rule out a lot of the present population that happens to have a small mutation in one of the genes you've specified as being necessary.

Again, species is a convenient human classification system. As far as species like kangaroos are concerned it's generally defined as groups that can mate and produce fertile offspring. On that basis, we run into the same problem with evolution as we do with ring species (have you ever bothered to follow that link?), in that there never was a time at which the population couldn't interbreed but the population changes gradually to the point at which it would be impossible for the modern species to interbreed with its ancestor. This is demonstrated with ring species, where at a certain point, we have two distinct species (no interbreeding) but if we follow them round the ring there is no other point at which this applies, they just gradually change with location (rather than though time, as with evolution).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Look I was referring to atheist..going about arguing about a God that they don't believe in..
Now does that make sense to you.
Why argue over something that you don't believe in..that's foolishness.
If I was to argue over anything it sure wouldn't be over something I don't believe in that's for sure..

You forget, far too many believers seek to inflict their beliefs on others. They want to make their beliefs into part of public policy, for instance (concerning LGBTQ people, or what days stores can open, or whether we all have to pray together at public policy meetings -- any number of things they want to force upon others). So long as believers aim to cram their God down our throats, we are forced to deal with it. If they would just shut up and worship on their own and leave everbody else to their own devices, nobody would care any more.