Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

lol, you generally have accusations to make about me and Christianity, and again, I thank you for the conversations because they have truly helped me to understand more. So thanks again, be well. I am simply telling you that not only do I not agree with the terminology you prefer using insofar as humans being animals and monkeys (and others like using), but discussing what I have discussed with you and others has truly helped me understand more. And so I thank you. Since you consider me trolling, I will now look forward to not answering you. Thanks again.

What accusations? I know that you do not like it, but denying evolution does make you a science denier. And what accusations of Christianity have I made?

The reason that I insist on the terminology is that there is evidence behind it. In a debate one is supposed to use evidence and concepts supported by evidence. Creationists get frustrated quite often because there is no reliable evidence for their beliefs. If there was some small chance that one could be correct then one could claim that one is not a science denier, but when one cannot find any evidence for one's beliefs then the label is appropriate.

 

[Valjean]

I'm not confusing abiogenesis with evolution. You simply cannot have evolution with abiogenesis, is that true?

Huh? What am I missing here?

In other words, growth of life (evolution perhaps?) cannot proceed without a beginning from -- somewhere, isn't that right?

Sure, life must exist before it can change, but what's your point?

 

[Valjean]

Can you please offer at least a link to the evidence you say is overwhelming in your first sentence? Thank you. ("a few cells, reproducing with variation, in changing environments, over millions of generations," etc. Thank you again. Remember I said evidence.

You've already seen the evidence. It's basic biology. Presumably, you learned this in school.
We've also linked to sites addressing these questions hundreds of times, but, if you read them at all, you didn't learn anything from them.
So, I doubt you'd learn anything by new links, but here; a site containing hundreds of articles you could browse through and learn from: TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

What reasonable or evidenced alternative explanation is there?

 

[gnostic]

Some of us observe Him from His wondrous works, such as the heavens, and the earth itself.

That’s called “superstition” or “belief”, not evidence.

Some of the ancients believed that the Sun traversing across the sky, was their god sailing on fiery boat, or driving flaming chariot pulled by horses.

These old “god did it” claims are no different from your own belief, but neither your belief, nor theirs, are considered evidence.

God did it is a superstition, that you can neither observe god doing it, nor measure god, nor test god.

Can you not distinguish between observable evidence and superstitions?

But much more than that, I have come to know more from my reading and examination of the Bible and being among those who worship Him. No one can give you this faith or knowledge but God by means of His Son.

Actually, using the Bible to prove your belief, is just circular reasoning, because you are using the belief of the author to prove your own belief in the very same book.

That’s circular...and it is confirmation bias.

If you truly want to prove the Genesis Creation is true, then it must be outside and independent of your own belief and independent of the Bible.

But there are no direct physical evidence of god, no one can observe, measure or test God, so that make Genesis Creation, unfalsifiable and untestable.

Plus, nothing in the Bible, including Genesis, offer any detailed explanation ON ANYTHING:

• Not the nature of the sun or stars, like what the stars are, how it radiate light or heat.
• Nothing on the connection between the Earth and the Sun, eg day and night, the seasons, etc.
• No details about any of the vegetation.
• No details about the anatomies of fishes, birds, land animals or the humans.

Everything Genesis 1 & 2 say, are either wrong, inaccurate or very superficial or vague.

To give you an example of the superficial description: the birds.

All it would say in Genesis 1:20-21, is that birds can fly because they have wings.

That’s no explanation. That is just a very superficial description that even pre-kindergarten children could give. There are no explanations to the wings and bodies of any bird - no anatomy details, no physiology details.

There more than just the wings that give them flight capability. Such as the locomotive of the shoulders, or that their bone structure have cavities that are connected to their respiratory systems, which are filled with air, to provide them lightness.

Plus, it is even entirely accurate, because only some thousands numbers of species that are capable of flight, while there are few dozens of species that cannot fly, even when they still have wings.

So if some birds are flightless, then why do they still have wings?

 

[YoursTrue]

That’s called “superstition” or “belief”, not evidence.
.......
So if some birds are flightless, then why do they still have wings?

I don't know. But I do believe flightless birds with wings are still birds, aren't they? (They're not lions or gorillas, are they?)

 

[LIIA]

Quantum reality posits many apparent impossibilities.

True, Quantum physics introduces a world of mysteries. Richard Feynman said, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics". The more you know about this theory, the less likely you are to pretend you fully understand its deepest implications.

Quantum reality left the door wide open for a total new perspective of consciousness as it relates/interacts with matter and the entire universe.

Quantum theory is the most fundamental theory of matter. In recent decades, several approaches proposed new understanding of consciousness in light of the quantum theory.

Quantum reality posits that quantum states suddenly resolve when they’re measured (the wave function collapses due to its interaction with consciousness); the act of observation with the human mind is causing the world to manifest changes. Consciousness has the capacity to change the behavior of matter.

David Bohm saw mind and matter as projections into our explicate order from the underlying implicate order. John Archibald Wheeler suggests on the basis of quantum mechanics that the universe, as a condition of its existence, must be observed. Consciousness and the quantum state of the universe are interrelated; the entire universe would be in a superposition of states that only collapses to the realm of classical reality through the observation of the conscious mind.

The anthropic principle (first proposed in 1957 by Robert Dicke) hypothesizes the concept of “observation selection effect” which explains why this universe has the fundamental physical finely tuned constants necessary to accommodate conscious life.

In 1961, Eugene Wigner put forward a theory in which a mind was crucial to the collapse of a wave function and the destruction of superposition. Wigner and other physicists who adhered to the theory of conscious collapses such as John von Neumann, John Wheeler, and John Bell believed that an inanimate consciousness-less object would not collapse the wave function of a quantum system and would thus leave it in a superposition of states. The superposition remains, until a conscious observer causes its destruction.

This leads to the conclusion that there are two distinct types of “substances” in the universe: the physical, and the non-physical, with the human mind fitting in the latter category. This suggests, though, that the brain is a physical and biological object, while the mind is something else, resulting in so-called “mind-body dualism.”

The quantum realm constitutes a non-deterministic realm. Consciousness is a non-physical phenomenon associated with free will that makes use of the freedom that quantum mechanics provides to cause the transition from the non-deterministic realm of quantum states to the deterministic realm of classical reality.

Our physical body/brain that resides in the physical realm is channeled to establish the connection with the non-physical consciousness that resides beyond the physical realm, which enables the capacity of mind to manifest changes in the quantum realm to cause the transition from quantum states to classical reality.

The continuous connection between the physical brain and the non-physical phenomenal consciousness allows instant transmission/flow of information/influence similar to the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. The death of the physical brain only breaks the connection with the non-physical consciousness, which continues to exist (as evidenced by the Near-Death Studies).

Quantum reality introduces a consciousness model within a higher dimensional framework, integrating elements of physics and metaphysics. Matter and consciousness are regarded as dual aspects of one underlying reality integrating the physical and the metaphysical.

 

[LIIA]

Belief in God, sons, messengers and after-life is also that.

Why?

What is membrane? That also is chemistry, made of atoms. Same with nucleotides. What are metabolic functions? Chemistry,

It’s a flawed logic. An engine is made of atoms, same as the transmission, frame, axle, wheels, etc. all the components of a car came through physical and chemical processes. Is that in any way evidence that the car is not purposefully designed?

A God creating a human from soil and a woman from his ribs is even more ludicrous.

Why? Our physical bodies are created from earthly material from the environment that constitutes our temporary settlement. Why is that ludicrous?

Why you think that your claimed creation from earthly material through abiogenesis/ evolution is more believable? I’ll tell you why.

First, in your mind, you think creation is an instantaneous impossible process verses a very slow process. The component of time is troubling you but don’t you know that time is only relative? If B is an outcome of A in each scenario, why time is an issue? After all creationism doesn’t assign specific time to the process of creating life. It’s irrelevant. In addition, your speculated impossibility is relative to your own knowledge/capacity but why would that be a determining factor? The Big Bang/initial formation of the universe emerged from nothing in a tiny fraction of a second, how can you define/measure what is possible or impossible?

Second, the component of intention/purpose verses randomness is troubling you but if every observation points to design/purpose/intention, why would you insist on randomness? In fact, intention is an integral deterministic component of reality. Quantum reality posits that intention/consciousness and matter are regarded as dual aspects of one fabric of reality. matter remains in superposition of states, until a conscious observer causes its
collapse. See # 3086

To safe-guard what it has created. Perhaps there were organisms with less safe-guards, which did not survive. That is why nature pumps in 75 million sperms when just 1 is required. Evolution does not have to spend money for that.

You’re talking about intention/purpose not randomness. Do you think evolution has purpose? Selection can only work on an existing competitive advantage but can never see or select stored future potential that is not active.

 

[LIIA]

Scientists don't pretend to know what dark energy / matter is.
They are, at best, placeholder names for demonstrable phenomenon of unknown origins.
The names "energy" and "matter" are chosen only because of the similarity of the observed unknown phenomenon with those phenomenon we DO know about.

In case of dark matter for example, we observe gravitational forces but we don't see the matter we would expect to see to exert that force.
Thus *something* is sourcing those gravitational forces. Hence the name "dark matter". It's just a label for something that is currently unknown. Just to make it easier to talk about it.

It is dishonest of you to say that science pretends to know what it is.

You didn’t get it. I’m not accusing scientists of pretending to know what they don’t. The point is that it’s always acceptable in science to infer causes that are neither known nor understood such as dark energy, strong nuclear force and all fundamental forces for that matter. Our knowledge about it is merely a given name to make it easier to talk about it. We observe its action, but we don’t know what it is. we just infer and accept its necessary existence.

No. We don't know "nothing". We know that there is SOMETHING that has to account for those gravitational forces. We just don't know what.

Yes, it’s essentially an inference of the necessary existence of an unknown (SOMETHING) but the necessary hierarchy of the causality levels must continue tell it ends at an absolute.

Causes/forces (level B) has to account for the observable phenomena (level C). Similarly, something of a higher hierarchy (level A) has to account for level B.

See #490

Darwin's Illusion | Page 25 | Religious Forums

Are you saying that "god" is just a placeholder name for an unknown thing, like "dark matter".
That's cool. But I would advice using a label that carries less baggage.

I’m saying we infer unknown causes all the time; the concept is perfectly acceptable in science. God is the ultimate unknown cause of all causes.

If we acknowledge the fact that the nature of the cause is unknown, then we cannot with any level of certainty infer the defining attributes of the unknown. IOW, if the cause is unknown, then on what basis you deny the attribute of intention/purpose? Especially if observations point to otherwise. intention is an integral component in the fabric of reality. see# 3086

That's not a model. That's a bare unfalsifiable claim.

It’s definitely falsifiable. The observation of contingent entities (everything from the universe to subatomic particles) should either support intention/purpose or randomness.

How do you test that?

It has been already tested. The specific values of the fundamental physical constants have led to the scientific consensus that the universe is finely tuned. in addition, the anthropic principle proposes that the phenomenon of finely tuned constants is a function of the “observation selection effect” as discussed in #3086. see the link below.

The Universe Really Is Fine-Tuned, And Our Existence Is The Proof (forbes.com)

 

[LIIA]

Key words: IN the universe.

Entities in the universe as well as the universe in its entirety.

Causality is a phenomenon IN the universe which depends ON the universe, as it is necessarily temporal.

The universe in its entirety is a temporal being.

And temporal.

Every temporal/contingent entity is caused including the universe in its entirety.

A cause for the universe would imply something happened "before" the universe.
But relativity informs us that "before" the universe is a nonsensical idea.

The universe as a temporal/contingent being is necessarily caused but the cause beyond the Big Bang, is necessarily beyond causality, time and space. I.e., beyond anything physical. IOW, supernatural.

The nothingness beyond the BB means nothing physical. No matter, no radiation, no laws, no time, no space. I.e., Nothing physical of any kind. But “nothing” cannot cause anything. The cause exists but simply not physical.

 

[LIIA]

//facepalm

Typical ostrich defense.
It's pretty straightforward and it is seen in literally every application and observed everywhere. Both in extant species as well as in the fossil record.

But you can keep your head firmly locked in the ground if you want.

Nonsense, “local optimum” may arguably cause stasis but “local optimum” must be preceded by gradual changes. Meaning the geological history should first show a long “pre-stasis phase” of gradual changes that finally reach a “local optimum”, but the “pre-stasis phase" is totally missing in the geological history.

And again, with respect to gradualism, the rate of change is irrelevant. If gradualism is true, then stasis should be still followed by gradual change but what we see in the real world is that stasis are always followed by “sudden jumps” with massive addition of genetic information. This observation is persistent throughout the geological history.

Neither the “pre-stasis phase” (before a local optimum) can be seen in the fossil record nor stasis is followed by gradual changes. The predictions assumed by the theoretical framework are contradictory to the real-world evidence. Your nonsensical denial wouldn’t change the facts.

I didn't use the word "perfectly". That's just you and it is misplaced.

No, you didn’t use it. I did.

If a species reaches a local optimum without any need for further changes to better fit its niche, then its necessarily perfection. Do you understand? If something doesn’t need to change to be better, it’s necessarily perfect.

Such perfection “local optimum” dominates the entire geological history. I.e., stasis.

And it is.
The cambrian explosion was "sudden" in geological time. But the entire process took millions of years.
"fast" in a world where life's history spans 3.8 billion years.
But "slow" when considering it takes months or a few years to generate a new generation.

Again, time is irrelevant. The issue is the absence of the alleged gradual changes/transitional forms. The Precambrian era has no evidence of any life forms other than single-celled organisms/ remains of different types of bacteria.

It is simply not true. In fact, it's so not true that it is exactly such observations that gave rise to the whole idea of PE.

The observations of stasis and "sudden jumps" gave rise to the idea of punctuated equilibrium.

And you are responding to a post where it is explained who evolutionary change IS gradual, regardless of the speed.

False, stasis are never followed (or preceded) by gradual change but always "sudden jumps".

"sudden jumps" that account for millions of years.

Time is totally irrelevant, when and if a change happens, it must be gradual not a massive jump of genetic info.

It's explained through PE.

False, PE doesn’t explain it that is why Richard Dawkins criticized PE and claimed that the change must have happened somewhere else due to migratory events. Dawkins ignored the fact that his alleged “elsewhere gradual change” was never found.

 

[LIIA]

I can, if it's not relevant to the point being made.

Sure, you can simply ignore a couple billions of years, it doesn’t really matter since the whole thing is nothing but some meaningless “Geisteswissenschaften”. See #331.

 

[LIIA]

Have some common sense.
When DNA mutation occurs during conception, the molecule has no knowledge of against what kind of background that individual will be hunting.

So, if mutation happens that affects fur color, it is not going to be a specific color to match that background.
It's instead going to be whatever it's going to be. And once the individual is born and starts hunting, it will either be succesful at hunting or it won't. Having fur of any other color then white, is going to make it harder for that individual to remain undetected. Perhaps it can compensate with another trait, perhaps not.
But likely it won't. This will not play in its advantage.

Mutation is random with respect to fitness.
Fur color for a hunter at the north pole is going to impact that hunter's fitness.

You didn’t understand a single word of what I said and I wonder why?

Yes, per the ToE random DNA mutation neither has any knowledge of he environmental variables nor intentionally trying to address it. And yes, fur color for a hunter at the North Pole is going to impact that hunter's fitness. THIS IS EXACTLY THE POINT.

If random mutation happens that affects fur color of bears that live at the pole, it is not going to be a specific color to match that background. Random means any random color may emerge at any time even after reaching “local optimum”. And yes, once the mutated individual with new random color starts hunting, it would be subject to selection pressures. Again, the point is we never see such disadvantageous random colors emerging in nature. It should randomly emerge any time/all the time then gets eliminated by selection pressures. there is no evidence for such random colors, randomness in nonexistent in nature. Do you understand?

Let's turn your nonsense around.
Please provide evidence that a DNA molecule at conception knows against what background the to-be-born individual is going to have to hunt.

Sure, no bears at the pole are ever born with mutated random colors other than white, which necessarily eliminates the alleged randomness of the mutation process.

But absence of randomness is not necessarily a claim of DNA molecules having awareness, yet the overall live processes definitely exhibit intention/purpose. A self-driving car may address environmental variables successfully because it was designed to do so.

You should read up a bit on genetics and how genotype affects phenotype.
Clearly you have no clue.

You seem to think that a mutation could give make a polar bear be born with blue fur or something.
This is beyond idiotic.

If random mutation can never produce random color (pick a color of your choice), how can the process be random?

Don’t you claim that disadvantageous random colors get eliminated by selection pressures that only keeps the best fit for the specific niche (white), where are these random colors? Why there is absolutely no evidence for it? Do you understand what randomness entails? Is it that difficult for you to understand?

There are never "massive jumps".
PE doesn't say there are "massive jumps".
What you call "massive jumps" are in fact processes the unfold over hundreds of thousands or even millions of years.

Stasis are always followed by "sudden jumps".
"Sudden jumps" are necessarily “massive jumps” with respect to new genetic info. Do you understand?

Nonsense.

Really?

See the online paleobiology database fossilworks for the age ranges of these fossils.

Fossilworks: Gateway to the Paleobiology Database

You think you are making an argument, but really you are just arguing a strawman.
Nobody is claiming that those fossils are direct descendants of one another or the direct ancestors of horses.

I could explain it, but likely you won't understand it. Or rather, be willing to understand it. You prefer to stay with your head firmly lodged into the ground.

I'll just give you a sneak peak instead.

A lineage of transitionals refers to the "state" of related species of those times.
Take today's big felines for example. Tigers, cheetah's, lions,... they are today's "state" of big cats.
Suppose cheetah's and lions go extinct and tigers produce sub-species. Suppose only lions leave fossils behind. Millions of years from now, suppose a lion fossil is uncovered.
That lion fossil would get its place in the lineage of fossils concerning the evolutionary history of the descendants of tigers at that time in the future.

And it is such always with transitional fossils.
Take the species of Lucy for example. The Australopithecus of the human lineage. That species is part of the evolutionary history of humans. It doesn't necessarily mean that that species are direct ancestors of homo sapiens. It merely means that they were part of the "state of life" of the ancestor group from which eventually homo sapiens evolved.

You may now return to your strawmanning "rebutals" which only further expose your (willful?) ignorance. :rolleyes

No relationship can be established between these fossils to fit any possible evolutionary development. Gradualism dictates observations of chronologically ordered series of fossils, a lineage of ancestors and descendants showing the alleged gradual change leading to current species which was never established in any species. That is the why the word “ancestor” is typically replaced by the word “relative”. No lineage can be established.

For example, the fossilized fully aquatic whale “Archaeocete” dates back 49 MILLION YEARS, which places fully aquatic whales back at least 10 million years long before almost all of their supposed ancestors (Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Procetus, Kutchicetus, Dorudon, Basilosaurus, Aetiocetus). The alleged descendants cannot exist before the alleged ancestors. See #1217 & #1298.

Again, see the online paleobiology database fossilworks for the age ranges of these fossils.

Fossilworks: Gateway to the Paleobiology Database

 

[LIIA]

It's neither rare nor illogical.
It happens all the time.

Really? Can an entity better fit a function other than the intended target of its design? Go ahead, demonstrate it.

Purpose is an intrinsic component of the process. You may purposefully change the function, but the entity always stays “best fit” for its intended purpose.

And it's not being used for its intended purpose.

You made a new less intelligent purpose for the doorstop by using it as weight on a broken puzzle piece that you glued but the design of the doorstop stays "best fit" to be used as doorstop (a much more intelligent purpose).

 

[LIIA]

That isn't a case of unknown function.
The function IS known.
It just no longer applies.

No, you’re making an assumption that it’s an old function that no longer applies because you don’t know its current function today. Again, unknown function ≠ no function.

Do you even read the links you provide?

First 2 paragraphes in that article:

Even though humans have evolved to have relatively little body hair, we still produce goosebumps when cold. Goosebumps occur when tiny muscles in our skin’s hair follicles, called arrector pili muscles, pull hair upright.

For animals with thick fur, this response helps keep them warm. But it doesn’t do so for people. Still, this ability to make goosebumps persists in humans and other animals that don’t have enough hair to retain warmth

I did but I’m not concerned about any empty speculation about an alleged root function, my concern is the already known facts about the proven function today, goosebumps have current functions as explained in #2876, such as help conserving heat when you’re exposed to cold by contraction of the muscles in the skin, cause skin pores to close in addition to trigger new/more hair growth and thicker hair on the long run by activating stem cells. Again, even if current function is not known to you, it doesn’t mean there is no function.

I wonder why you failed to comment on the other items, especially parroting Richard Dawkins ignorant claims about the faulty design of the eye? Regardless, if you get yourself informed of the latest on these ignorant claims, you will understand that all of these claims are false. See #2876

Darwin's Illusion | Page 144 | Religious Forums

 

[YoursTrue]

Why?



It’s a flawed logic. An engine is made of atoms, same as the transmission, frame, axle, wheels, etc. all the components of a car came through physical and chemical processes. Is that in any way evidence that the car is not purposefully designed?
....

Hi, just to mention, when I was in high school I took chemistry and I enjoyed it. Then I could have taken physics after that but decided this was way beyond me. Anyway, I was not geared towards science but took chemistry. I was, however, a scholarship winner based on my grades. Just a little background.
It wasn't until I got interested in the Bible that I began researching the theory of evolution, what people say and why they are so convinced of it. This is by way of introduction.
I'll skip a few points about my experiences here and mention that you made me think of something that happened in high school before I understood any of this, and also before I really believed in God. I wondeed why atoms had so much space between the nucleus and electrons yet could stick together forming other substances like wood. That's about all I'll say now. And yes/no, I'm not that knowledgeable with the terms.

 

[LIIA]

new strain of bacteria. New strain don’t instantly occur in the next generation. It would still take months for the original pathogen, to form into new strain.

So even with bacteria, it will still take time and so many numbers of generations for speciation to occur.

It's simply a false claim that contradicts empirical evidence.

Studies by Harvard University showed that the mutation process happens at a frightening speed, not in years or thousands of generations but within 11 days, bacteria developed defense mechanisms against antibiotics that increased its resistance levels by over 1000-fold.

The mutations actually started much earlier with varying levels of resistance starting from the first level to 10-fold to 100-fold, till finally the 1000-fold resistance that was achieved in only 11 days.

When the same experiment is repeated, it produces the same result. The repeatability/predictability of the experiment (not only the final result but also the timeframe required for a specific change to emerge) confirms that the change is not random but rather a specific directed mutation behavior.

Scientists reveal the frightening speed at which bacteria can develop antibiotic resistance

(519) The Evolution of Bacteria on a “Mega-Plate” Petri Dish (Kishony Lab)`` - YouTube

See #1245
Darwin's Illusion

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn’t understand a single word of what I said and I wonder why?

Yes, per the ToE random DNA mutation neither has any knowledge of he environmental variables nor intentionally trying to address it. And yes, fur color for a hunter at the North Pole is going to impact that hunter's fitness. THIS IS EXACTLY THE POINT.

If random mutation happens that affects fur color of bears that live at the pole, it is not going to be a specific color to match that background. Random means any random color may emerge at any time even after reaching “local optimum”. And yes, once the mutated individual with new random color starts hunting, it would be subject to selection pressures. Again, the point is we never see such disadvantageous random colors emerging in nature. It should randomly emerge any time/all the time then gets eliminated by selection pressures. there is no evidence for such random colors, randomness in nonexistent in nature. Do you understand?

Polar bears are a poor example. Their fur is not exactly white. It is unpigmented and it is hollow. As a result it reflects all colors of light and looks white to your eyes. . They appear to have a lack of any method of coloring their hair so you are demanding a major change occur and that will not occur randomly at once. I would probably take several mutations to return hair color. None of them would be all that advantageous in the Arctic so they will not accumulate. From you posts you have a flawed understanding of what random mutation can accomplish on its own.

Sure, no bears at the pole are ever born with mutated random colors other than white, which necessarily eliminates the alleged randomness of the mutation process.

Again, no, I broke off to early. Polar bears do not have white fur. There is no white coloring in it.

Polar Bear | National Wildlife Federation

But absence of randomness is not necessarily a claim of DNA molecules having awareness, yet the overall live processes definitely exhibit intention/purpose. A self-driving car may address environmental variables successfully because it was designed to do so.



If random mutation can never produce random color (pick a color of your choice), how can the process be random?

Don’t you claim that disadvantageous random colors get eliminated by selection pressures that only keeps the best fit for the specific niche (white), where are these random colors? Why there is absolutely no evidence for it? Do you understand what randomness entails? Is it that difficult for you to understand?

More unsupported ramblings.

Stasis are always followed by "sudden jumps".
"Sudden jumps" are necessarily “massive jumps” with respect to new genetic info. Do you understand?

The sudden jumps that you are talking about occur when the environment changes rapidly. And fossilization is a very vey rare event. There are countless examples of small changes even during stasis. What ends a stasis period is usually some sort of catastrophic change the causes mass extinction events. Guess what happens to populations when mass extinction events occur? Just in case you did not know populations drop precipitously too. Low numbers mean that fossilization would be even rarer. Jumps are what is expected. They are explained by the theory of evolution. To refute it you need to find something that is not explained.

Really?

See the online paleobiology database fossilworks for the age ranges of these fossils.

Fossilworks: Gateway to the Paleobiology Database



No relationship can be established between these fossils to fit any possible evolutionary development. Gradualism dictates observations of chronologically ordered series of fossils, a lineage of ancestors and descendants showing the alleged gradual change leading to current species which was never established in any species. That is the why the word “ancestor” is typically replaced by the word “relative”. No lineage can be established.

For example, the fossilized fully aquatic whale “Archaeocete” dates back 49 MILLION YEARS, which places fully aquatic whales back at least 10 million years long before almost all of their supposed ancestors (Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Procetus, Kutchicetus, Dorudon, Basilosaurus, Aetiocetus). The alleged descendants cannot exist before the alleged ancestors. See #1217 & #1298.

Again, see the online paleobiology database fossilworks for the age ranges of these fossils.

Fossilworks: Gateway to the Paleobiology Database

Wrong. Arcaheoceti are a group. They are not one single species and not all of them were "fully aquatic":

Archaeoceti - Wikipedia

You just keep linking a site without quoting from it or citing specific pages. For example I linked a specific article that refutes your claim. And here is a quote from it:

"Archaeoceti ("ancient whales"), or Zeuglodontes in older literature, is a paraphyletic group of primitive cetaceans that lived from the Early Eocene to the late Oligocene (50 to 23 million years ago).[1] Representing the earliest cetacean radiation, they include the initial amphibious stages in cetacean evolution, thus are the ancestors of both modern cetacean suborders, Mysticeti and Odontoceti.[2] This initial diversification occurred in the shallow waters that separated India and Asia 53 to 45 mya, resulting in some 30 species adapted to a fully oceanic life. Echolocation and filter-feeding evolved during a second radiation 36 to 35 mya.[3]"

Please note, the article says that the group includes the initial amphibious stages (not fully aquatic). It also gives when echolocation started and other traits. The whole article is a good read if you want to learn about whales. But as usual, your claims are incorrect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's simply a false claim that contradicts empirical evidence.

Studies by Harvard University showed that the mutation process happens at a frightening speed, not in years or thousands of generations but within 11 days, bacteria developed defense mechanisms against antibiotics that increased its resistance levels by over 1000-fold.

The mutations actually started much earlier with varying levels of resistance starting from the first level to 10-fold to 100-fold, till finally the 1000-fold resistance that was achieved in only 11 days.

When the same experiment is repeated, it produces the same result. The repeatability/predictability of the experiment (not only the final result but also the timeframe required for a specific change to emerge) confirms that the change is not random but rather a specific directed mutation behavior.

Scientists reveal the frightening speed at which bacteria can develop antibiotic resistance

(519) The Evolution of Bacteria on a “Mega-Plate” Petri Dish (Kishony Lab)`` - YouTube

See #1245
Darwin's Illusion

He was talking about a new strain. Your article only describes the addition of a single trait.

 

[LIIA]

That is not the model. That is the claim. The model explains why we observe what we observe. All you have are claims. You have no evidence for your claims. Without a proper refutable model you do not have any evidence.

That is the model. We observe what we observe because all contingent entities are purposefully caused/designed. Nothing is random. Again, the predictions are purpose/design/intention in every entity from the entire universe to subatomic particles. All observations support that model.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is the model. We observe what we observe because all contingent entities are purposefully caused/designed. Nothing is random. Again, the predictions are purpose/design/intention in every entity from the entire universe to subatomic particles. All observations support that model.

You need to prove that such entities are even "contingent". You do not get to declare that they exist. The "contingent entities" claims of Muslim apologists have never been supported. All that they have are circular arguments when it comes to them. It is a weak attempt to avoid the burden of proof for God. They merely clam that his existence is "contingent" without ever supporting the claims associated with that concept.

The sciences are based upon what we can see observe and test. And bad philosophy never refutes anything.