Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Valjean]

The original point that I made relevant to the discussion is that evidence for small changes by itself doesn’t automatically show that big changes occur (additional evidence is requires)

True. Most species that have ever existed are extinct. They couldn't manage the required changes.
Those we see around us did -- for now.

 

[Pogo]

I am not disagreeing. Not that I believe evolution as described by (some) scientists is true, but I can see your reasoning. I don't think that the actual changes, shall we say, can be followed by scientists. You know like from eukaryotes on upward.

What changes do you mean, we are eukaryotes, beyond that we use morphology and genetics to create the phylogenetic trees from observed changes and parsimony in phylogenetics and lo and behold they agree which is yet more evidence that the theory is correct.

Again I ask, what is your alternate explanation for the data we have?
As with all scientific explanations, it is not assumed to be perfect, just the best we can do with the information at hand.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When examining the fossil record from a broader-scale perspective moving up through time from the oldest fossils to the most recent, the changes that are explained by the theory of evolution are seen by scientists and by anyone that cares to look.

 

[leroy]

Then what was the nonsense about probability you brought up?

It´s not non cense …..I simply said that the way I understand the Word Agnostic means “to be within the 50s% rage……………….someone who doesn’t think that one view(atheism or theism) is more likely than other

You can call it Agnositism or give it an other name……………….the question is given the evidnece we have to date-------¿do you think that one view (atheism or theism) is more likely to be true than the other?.........will you ever answer this question?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Two things that I have noted in this long-running debate are 1. those claiming to understand science don't really seem to and 2. the former hardly matters since rejection of science is based on personal belief and not on any understanding of science.

 

[Stevicus]

I find them especially relevant on an internet forum.

Although @Stevicus communicates mostly in pictures and I understand him just fine.

 

[Pogo]

I've also used the phrase "as populations approach zero". It should be easy enough to parse the words.

Yes that is parsable, but not relevant in general except for populations that are no longer involved in evolution.
You seem to have come up with an alternative to evolution built around some common words in biology and thus claim that evolution is wrong, but what appears to be wrong is your understanding of evolution and how the words you use actually fit in.
Again. Evolution 101

 

[YoursTrue]

What changes do you mean, we are eukaryotes, beyond that we use morphology and genetics to create the phylogenetic trees from observed changes and parsimony in phylogenetics and lo and behold they agree which is yet more evidence that the theory is correct.

Again I ask, what is your alternate explanation for the data we have?
As with all scientific explanations, it is not assumed to be perfect, just the best we can do with the information at hand.

OK, so whatever happened at abiogenesis we're that too. Meantime I was reading something about elephants and their teeth. I find it interesting that when all their teeth are gone they die. Maybe, who knows? they'll have a couple of elephants evolving with replaceable teeth coming up soon. But maybe there's no need for elephants to do that.
"‘Higher crowns protect against abrasion, which is important as elephants only have a set number of teeth. Once they’re all gone, the elephant will die, so it’s important to develop higher crowns to maintain a similar life expectancy.’ How deep-sea drilling is helping to unravel elephant evolution.

 

[leroy]

True. Most species that have ever existed are extinct. They couldn't manage the required changes.
Those we see around us did -- for now.

Aja, true but irrelevant.............. when are you going to refute (or grant) any of the claims that I made?

 

[Valjean]

his original claim

So it seems to me that he is saying that small changes always lead to big changes………….he later changed his words (he changed “can” for “do”)

The implication is that proving micro evolution doesn’t automatically proves macro evolution

In my opinion that is not neat picking, do and can are very different words



In my opinion that is not neat picking, "do" and "can" are very different words, his origianl word was "DO"



Given his original claim where he uses the word DO, do you still think I misunderstood?

And even after all this time, it is still not clear to me if

1 acknowledges his mistake (typo) and admits that “DO” was not the correct word use

2 acknowledges his mistake (he didn’t know previously that small changes don’t necesirly lead to big changes) but he learded and changes his mind

3 still thinks that he is correct and that small changes do (necessarily) lead to big changes

The complex, multicellular species we see around us are the result of accumulated changes.
Change/variation happens. When changes are advantageous, they're more likely to spread through populations. When they don't, they tend to be selected out. This seems pretty commonsense to me. It seems pretty explanatory.

 

[leroy]

The complex, multicellular species we see around us are the result of accumulated changes.
Change/variation happens. When changes are advantageous, they're more likely to spread through populations. When they don't, they tend to be selected out. This seems pretty commonsense to me. It seems pretty explanatory.

Yes granted……….the problem is that nobody is claiming the opposite.

Why don’t you refute (or grant) a claim made by me?

 

[Valjean]

Us? Who is us? The only one in this forum that affirms that the eye evolved just by random mutations and natural selection is you

And me.

I don’t think there are any demonstrable mechanism that can explain the origin of the human eye nor any other complex organ or system………………the only one in this forum who claims to have such mechanism is you

There is. The information is at your fingertips. Google.

 

[Pogo]

You may claim you know because of fossils and dating, but to say it happened by chance, or selection of the fittest, is really putting things together that aren't there. In other words, reasoning about the evidence and what goes on in between may or may not be the truth about the process of evolution. Whales are probably too heavy to evolve to be land-dwellers.

Where did this "whales evolved to be land dwellers" come from? Was it you or somebody else with no understanding of evolution? As for natural selection vs chance, natural selection is confirmed all the time, just look at the sequence in the Covid variations and how one would be dominant and then another with greater reprductive power would take over and become the dominant strain because it was more transmissible or was transmitted more before it made on sick etc. What we don't see is everybody having a different strain because all the random variations propagated equally.

 

[Valjean]

Yes granted……….the problem is that nobody is claiming the opposite.

Why don’t you refute (or grant) a claim made by me?

The creationists are denying it.

OK, what claim would you like me to refute?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh, a challenge.

 

[Valjean]

There are millions of species.

There would be quadrillions if Evolutionists were right.

???? -- Why?

 

[Valjean]

There are so many species because there are also local bottlenecks

Huh?

 

[Pogo]

It´s not non cense …..I simply said that the way I understand the Word Agnostic means “to be within the 50s% rage……………….someone who doesn’t think that one view(atheism or theism) is more likely than other

You can call it Agnositism or give it an other name……………….the question is given the evidnece we have to date-------¿do you think that one view (atheism or theism) is more likely to be true than the other?.........will you ever answer this question?

An agnostic which is a person who does not know if there are gods has a probability of 100% of being an agnostic.
An atheist which is a person who does not believe in the existence of one or many gods has a probability of 1 of being an atheist.

There are also agnostic atheists who are also who they are.
Not to mention ignostics, apatheists and others.

BTW, the a prefix means not, it is binary.

 

[YoursTrue]

Where did this "whales evolved to be land dwellers" come from? Was it you or somebody else with no understanding of evolution? As for natural selection vs chance, natural selection is confirmed all the time, just look at the sequence in the Covid variations and how one would be dominant and then another with greater reprductive power would take over and become the dominant strain because it was more transmissible or was transmitted more before it made on sick etc. What we don't see is everybody having a different strain because all the random variations propagated equally.

I figure whales are too fat to need to evolve to be land dwellers. You're kidding about the Covid variations, aren't you? These variations remain Covid, don't they? Yes -- elephants so far remain as elephants with teeth falling out and no replacements. Yet.

 

[John53]

Whales are probably too heavy to evolve to be land-dwellers.

Your point?