Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

Yeah, that what I thought. You've got nothing. If you had any clue at all about what you were talking you would know the species you were talking about. You are not even vaguely informed on the topic. You are just parroting creationist scripts.

I gave you a specific answer that only an ignorant of evolutionary biology would disagree with (and you disagreed). Get yourself familiar with what you advocate first before you talk.

Don’t hide behind fallacious “Ad hominem” tactic, try to address the specifics of an argument and state the reasons for your disagreement, if you can’t, then just be quiet and stop the nonsense.

 

[LIIA]

Even if what you say here were hypothetically true, it would likely only point to the incompleteness of the fossil record.

It’s not hypothetical, it’s confirmed by paleontologist. See #352.

Incompleteness is not the word paleontologist use. The correct description of the fossil record is “no support for gradual change”.

Stephen Jay Gould said “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions OFFERS NO SUPPORT FOR GRADUAL CHANGE. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." (Natural History, pp. 22, 24.)

Transitional fossils found outside the Lucy to H.sapiens branch such as Tiktalik show that other life forms evolved.

The 375 mya Tiktaalik cannot be the missing transitional form between fish and the first four-legged creature because the 395 mya footprints of four-legged creatures found in poland (18 million years older than Tiktaalik) disproves Tiktaalik as the transitional link.

2010, Nature wrote “Some prints, showing individual digits, were found in limestone slabs unearthed in a quarry near Zachełmie, Poland, dated to about 395 million years ago — more than 18 million years before tetrapods were thought to have evolved.”
Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal - Nature

2010, NewSientist.
Oldest footprints of a four-legged vertebrate discovered | New Scientist

What is Tiktaalik?

Tiktaalik is a fossil of an animal with features like fish and four-legged vertebrates. It has crocodile-like flathead with a neck that allows the head to move independently from the body, scales on its back like a fish, ribcage that suggest lungs, some sort of fins which believed to provide some support to the body on land. But as stated in an article by the gardian “The scientists have yet to find a Tiktaalik hind fin bone”.

Tiktaalik fossils reveal how fish evolved into four-legged land animals | Fossils | The Guardian

So what is the big deal about Tiktaalik?

Tiktaalik has a mix of characteristics that appears to give it the ability of alternating between aquatic and terrestrial habitats and was considered as the missing link between fish and tetrapods.

Amphibians/semiaquatic animals (such as newts and Axolotl) are present species with a mix of characteristics between fish and tetrapods. They can breathe with both gills and lungs and alternate between aquatic and terrestrial habitats. They are no missing link.

When most amphibians are young, they live in water, and they use gills to breathe in the water. When they become adults, they go through a process called metamorphosis, in which it experiences a number of physiological changes that help the species adapt to life on land. They lose their gills, their lungs gets developed, muscle tone in limbs gets increased, eyelids developed, the skin's permeability to water gets reduced, etc. all of that happen during the transition to adulthood not gradually through random mutations and natural selection in millions of years. No speciation, No transitional forms. No missing links. The offspring of an amphibian just continue to repeat the same life cycle. The mix of characteristics of the 375 mya Tiktaalik simply suggest an extinct amphibian.

Mixed characteristics of an amphibian specially if it dies at a specific age can be interpreted as a transitional form between fish and tetrapods but it’s simply nothing but an amphibian in a certain stage of its live.

The mix of characteristics of the 375 mya Tiktaalik as an aquatic animal with lungs, independently moving head and potentially four limbs, suggest an extinct amphibian similar to the present example of Axolotl (amphibian), which breathes with gills (external) and also has functional lungs. See Axolotl in the link below.

Tiktaalik flathead with eyes on top could be an extinct bottom-dwelling species similar to the Crocodilefish and it also bears a strong resemblance to the Gar fish (Alligator Gar) that also exist today. But if Tiktaalik did have lungs and possibly some sort of four limbs, with the ability to live both on land and under water then it’s as close as it can be to some present amphibians such as the South China giant salamander which is just an amphibian, not a missing link.

 Giant Chinese Salamander can reach 1.8 meters and weigh around 64 kilos and is an endemic species of the streams of the forested and mountainous areas of eastern China. : NatureIs****ingLit (reddit.com)

Many explanations are possible but regardless; evidence has already proven that four-legged creatures existed 18 MILLION years before Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik is not the transitional form between fish and the four-legged creature, Tiktaalik is an extinct amphibian/semiaquatic animal. It’s an example of how a false prior leads to a false interpretation of observations.

The theory entails the existence enormous number of transitional fossils, if hardly any is found and with major problems, it discredits the theory.

If other life forms than H.Sapiens evolved what is it (other than your religious agenda) which demands that H.Sapiens appeared fully formed when other species evolved?

It didn’t other than inaccurate interpretations of few questionable fossils in light of a one unfalsifiable hypothesis. The fact is organisms do appear fully formed (without intermediates) in the fossil record.

Stephen J. Gould said “Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species DOES NOT ARISE GRADUALLY BY THE STEADY TRANSFORMATION of its ancestors; it APPEARS ALL AT ONCE AND 'FULLY FORMED.'"

Disagree, it could just point to the incompleteness of the fossil record.

See#352

Darwin himself acknowledges the lack of intermediates as the most obvious and serious objection to his hypothesis of gradual transformation. Paleontologists confirmed that the fossil record doesn’t support “gradual steady transformation”.

Darwin stated in his book the Origin of Species “But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, SO MUST THE NUMBER OF INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES, WHICH HAVE FORMERLY EXISTED, BE TRULY ENORMOUS. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is THE MOST OBVIOUS AND SERIOUS OBJECTION WHICH CAN BE URGED AGAINST THE THEORY.”

 

[LIIA]

The fossil record is far more complete than our recent member seems to think. Creationists so often make the mistake of thinking that there has been only one example found of a species and often do not know of the many recent finds.

This kind of statements “all is well, we have tons of evidence, we follow the science you don’t ” are the typical evolutionists ignorant statements. It’s not an argument. Be specific and name your evidence. Recent finds with respect to the fossil records and adaptation mechanisms are against the theory especially the fossils of hominids. Scientists (such as Gerd B. Müller and Denis Noble) acknowledge the challenges against the theory and call for the “extended evolutionary synthesis” as a new framework to address the new facts of science.

The royal society conference in 2016, Gerd B. Müller said “A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution, indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike”, “but more often the defenders of the traditional conception argue that ‘all is well’ with current evolutionary theory” , “the discrepancies between the current usage of evolutionary concepts and the predictions derived from the classical model have grown.” See#160

After the finding of the 7 million years old skull in northern Chad (Toumaï), The anthropologist Bernard Wood said about the fossils of hominids ” How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated.” See #326, item 4.

Oldest member of human family found : Nature News

For example, part of opening up China opened it up to geologists and there have been some amazing finds there. China is a pretty big country with a complex geologic history so there was a lot to be found there. China was where it became abundantly clear that birds are dinosaurs. And she is probably only aware of the tenth of the work done in human evolution.

Yeah, China is great and the finds are amazing. Again, it’s nothing but some more ignorant statements. Be specific, identify your point and name your references.

Amazing in what sense? It’s only amazing in the sense that it challenges conventional ideas about the alleged evolutionary history of humanity, proves that previous ideas about the human origin story – who we are and where we came from – were wrong and that the alleged human origin story should be rewritten. That’s how amazing it is. I mentioned the finding in Asia before. See# 326, item 7.

The earliest evidence of hominid settlement in China: Combined electron spin resonance and uranium series (ESR/U-series) dating of mammalian fossil teeth from Longgupo cave - ScienceDirect

Asia’s mysterious role in the early origins of humanity | New Scientist

Recent Discoveries Have Overhauled Our Picture of Where Humans Came From, And When (sciencealert.com)

How China Is Rewriting the Book on Human Origins - Scientific American

 

[LIIA]

And of course creationists always demonstrate their utter ignorance of the science when they ignore the DNA evidence. Though the fossil evidence is more than strong enough to demonstrate that modern life is the product of evolution the DNA evidence is even stronger. It is just that fossil evidence is merely the most obvious to an amateur.

This is how it works in evolutionary biology, First a single hypothesis is put alone on the table, Second all interpretations of observations have to be made exclusively in light of the only hypothesis and hence used to justify all observations as evidence, Third the very evidence are used to prove the hypothesis. It’s a fallacious circular reasoning.

You call it DNA evidence but the fact is, it’s DNA observations. Interpretations are what cause the observations to be taken as evidence. But with only one unfalsifiable hypothesis on the table, the interpretations are not credible. All interpretations can be only understood in light of this only (false) hypothesis.

DNA evidence show that a human cell with average diameter of 0.00001 meter includes 2 meter length of human DNA. With enough DNA length in the human body to go from Earth to the Sun and back more than 300 times, or around Earth's equator 2.5 million times!
DNA Packaging: Nucleosomes and Chromatin | Learn Science at Scitable (nature.com)

The DNA sequence is only the beginning of the story; the real story unfolds in the gene expression. The trillions of cells of different types that compose the human body contain exact same DNA but expressed differently through the controlled flow of information from DNA to RNA to protein in a precise process that regulates all functions by adjusting the amount and type of proteins it manufactures to end up with very different and specific functional cells such as nerve cell, heart cell, skin cell, immune cells, etc.

It’s not only the information encoded in the DNA but more importantly how the info is executed to build variety of complex functions through gene expression. A lot of the human genome that was previously considered as junk DNA (does not code for anything) was found to be regulatory genes.

Developmental regulatory genes control the identity of body parts setting up how an animal's body is organized by activating the genes responsible for putting the body parts together, simply were an eye, mouth, leg or tail would be placed.

Regulatory genes start working early in embryonic development to control the identity of body parts; the homeobox (Hox) genes don't give instructions how to create an organ but rather when and where (like the role of a head architect giving instruction for the construction of a building). They just send instructions down the chain of command in a rigid hierarchy. Under this top tier of regulatory genes there are scads of other genes, second tier genes and third tier and fourth tier and on down the line. Aside from that very first one at the top, genes don’t do anything until it's told when how much to do it. It’s not known what activates that first regulatory gene in the top tier to lead all other genes to precisely build a specific functional organism.

Hox genes specify regions of the body plan of an embryo along the head-tail axis of animals. Hox proteins encode and specify the characteristics of 'position', ensuring that the correct structures form in the correct places of the body. Now lets take a general external look at the end product of this process. External morphological features of most multicellular organisms exhibit symmetry that can be seen in the balanced distribution of duplicate body parts or shapes within the body of an organism. The duplicate parts exhibit reflectional symmetry along the axis/plane of symmetry. These external body parts appear almost identical, but are reversed in the direction. Almost a perfect mirror image of the opposite side in a harmonious beautiful proportion and balance.

External vital organs necessary for live such as the nose, mouth, the head itself and reproductive organs are always aligned with the body on the axis of symmetry (centerline). Other less vital organs (the creature may continue to live without it) such as limbs, ears, and eyes are organized in a reflectional symmetry along each side of the axis.

All parts/organs are organized logically, proportionally sized; symmetrical parts are always a perfect mirror image of the same size. We don’t see limbs longer or one side, displaced or not following the rigid rule of reflectional symmetry. We don’t see multiple eyes on the legs or tail on the head. All species are perfectly designed for survival in its niche. No exception.

Order is the norm not randomness. We’re so used to it to the point that we cannot recognize it or appreciate it. We appreciate light because of our experience with darkness. But we don’t appreciate or even recognize order simply because we never experienced randomness and what it would truly entail.

All living organisms exhibit perfection as manifested in its body plan balanced morphological features and developmental characteristics with the necessary functions to allow the organism to successfully survive and reproduce with its niche.

The ability of a living organism to successfully survive/reproduce is an absolute prerequisite before any evolutionary process may take place. The emergence of live is not dependent on any evolutionary process; on the contrary no evolutionary process is possible without life as a necessary prerequisite.

The alleged random evolutionary process is always working on the transformation of one already perfect living organism (as explained above) into another.

Logical errors:

A) If the process is random, then selection as a purifying force should not only be involved in the transforming one perfect living organism into another but rather the vast majority of the purification process should be mainly involved in constant correction/elimination of millions of all kind of random errors in a tedious and extremely slow process as entailed by the hypothesis of random gradual change. We don’t see that in nature.

B) If speciation happens mainly due geographic isolation (the new species can no longer interbreed with original species), then the new species will coexist independently along side with original species. Speciation is not a reason for original species to go extinct. This gradual sequencing necessarily predicts enormous number of species and transitional forms, both alive and in the fossil record. We don’t see that in nature.

A team of researchers in Switzerland took a hox gene from a mouse embryo (one that controls the location of an eye) and inserted it into the DNA of developing fruit fly embryo in a region of the fly that would become the back leg
It grew a fruit fly eye next to it’s back leg the instruction of the hox gene from the mouse was not how to make an eye but simply but an eye here. If the alleged evolutionary process is random (not intelligently guided) then we should see all sorts of similar errors such as limbs longer on one side, or body parts in the wrong locations, multiple repeated parts or at least the rigid reflectional symmetry would be broken. We don’t see that in nature.

How the process unfolds is nothing but a clear manifestation of extreme intelligence. It’s impossible to be a product of randomness, because if it was then we have to see evidence of all sorts of random errors (as explained above) that are being constantly corrected through selection. We don’t see that in nature.

Mutations are not random. Genetic evidence is the strongest evidence for the “intelligently guided process”. All careful studies of mutagenesis confirmed that not only mutations are not random, but also proteins did not evolve via gradual accumulation of change.

Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed. - YouTube

Neither genetic evidence support the alleged random change nor the fossil record supports the alleged gradual random transformation via natural selection. The theory is false.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Same meaningless nonsense, of the kind “ I’m right, you’re wrong, I know but you don’t” this is ridiculous, state your reasons and references not simply because you say so or wish to be?

You claim that my referenced articles in # 397 are all about 40 years out of date. Go back and read it. Indeed the first article was dated 1977 but continued with another in 1980, 2004 (Ernst Mayr) and 2013. All confirm the same view. I did cite more recent articles in other previous posts that I didn’t repeat in # 397.

Whether your are incapable of reading or did read but intentionally lying about it, it doesn’t matter because in either case it means that your argument is false.

No, you posted too much lunacy to deal with it all.

Do you want to go by Gish Gallop rules where refuting one refutes them all?

Your choice duede.

Yes you had two more recent articles but they did not help you either. You simply misunderstood them. The last one especially since all that was about was trying to include the recent discovery of the effects of epigenetics and the like. It was not a refutation at all. When you get something that wrong and do not realize it it tells everyone that you have no clue at all.

One at a time or I refute the whole lot by just refuting the last, which was just a misinterpretation on your part.

Your choice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I appreciate your input but if the matter is serious, it requires elaboration. how else would you refute a false view? there is no other way around it. you break it down, explain why each point is false and support your argument with references as needed.

It requires proper elaboration, not foolish techniques.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No its not, it's an extinct primate considered as a relative (unknown relationship) not a transitional form leading to H. sapiens. See #327

How quickly you forget. You are the one without a clue here. You are not a reference nor are your posts. Austraopithecus is still a family of transitional apes. You never refuted that. Do you want to discuss that? Pick one topic, you are all over the place.

Enlighten us!

I am trying to. One topic at a time. You can choose the topic that you are ignorant of.

Get real and stop the nonsense.



Stop the nonsense and get to the specifics of the argument.



fallacious nonsense, go ahead, enlighten us!

Can you discuss this properly? No excessive rudeness. Claims need to be supported by reliable sources. For example, if a source requires their workers not to follow the scientific method that cannot be used in a scientific debate. It would be crazy to use such a source.

You can do it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is how it works in evolutionary biology, First a single hypothesis is put alone on the table, Second all interpretations of observations have to be made exclusively in light of the only hypothesis and hence used to justify all observations as evidence, Third the very evidence are used to prove the hypothesis. It’s a fallacious circular reasoning.

You call it DNA evidence but the fact is, it’s DNA observations. Interpretations are what cause the observations to be taken as evidence. But with only one unfalsifiable hypothesis on the table, the interpretations are not credible. All interpretations can be only understood in light of this only (false) hypothesis.

DNA evidence show that a human cell with average diameter of 0.00001 meter includes 2 meter length of human DNA. With enough DNA length in the human body to go from Earth to the Sun and back more than 300 times, or around Earth's equator 2.5 million times!
DNA Packaging: Nucleosomes and Chromatin | Learn Science at Scitable (nature.com)

The DNA sequence is only the beginning of the story; the real story unfolds in the gene expression. The trillions of cells of different types that compose the human body contain exact same DNA but expressed differently through the controlled flow of information from DNA to RNA to protein in a precise process that regulates all functions by adjusting the amount and type of proteins it manufactures to end up with very different and specific functional cells such as nerve cell, heart cell, skin cell, immune cells, etc.

It’s not only the information encoded in the DNA but more importantly how the info is executed to build variety of complex functions through gene expression. A lot of the human genome that was previously considered as junk DNA (does not code for anything) was found to be regulatory genes.

Developmental regulatory genes control the identity of body parts setting up how an animal's body is organized by activating the genes responsible for putting the body parts together, simply were an eye, mouth, leg or tail would be placed.

Regulatory genes start working early in embryonic development to control the identity of body parts; the homeobox (Hox) genes don't give instructions how to create an organ but rather when and where (like the role of a head architect giving instruction for the construction of a building). They just send instructions down the chain of command in a rigid hierarchy. Under this top tier of regulatory genes there are scads of other genes, second tier genes and third tier and fourth tier and on down the line. Aside from that very first one at the top, genes don’t do anything until it's told when how much to do it. It’s not known what activates that first regulatory gene in the top tier to lead all other genes to precisely build a specific functional organism.

Hox genes specify regions of the body plan of an embryo along the head-tail axis of animals. Hox proteins encode and specify the characteristics of 'position', ensuring that the correct structures form in the correct places of the body. Now lets take a general external look at the end product of this process. External morphological features of most multicellular organisms exhibit symmetry that can be seen in the balanced distribution of duplicate body parts or shapes within the body of an organism. The duplicate parts exhibit reflectional symmetry along the axis/plane of symmetry. These external body parts appear almost identical, but are reversed in the direction. Almost a perfect mirror image of the opposite side in a harmonious beautiful proportion and balance.

External vital organs necessary for live such as the nose, mouth, the head itself and reproductive organs are always aligned with the body on the axis of symmetry (centerline). Other less vital organs (the creature may continue to live without it) such as limbs, ears, and eyes are organized in a reflectional symmetry along each side of the axis.

All parts/organs are organized logically, proportionally sized; symmetrical parts are always a perfect mirror image of the same size. We don’t see limbs longer or one side, displaced or not following the rigid rule of reflectional symmetry. We don’t see multiple eyes on the legs or tail on the head. All species are perfectly designed for survival in its niche. No exception.

Order is the norm not randomness. We’re so used to it to the point that we cannot recognize it or appreciate it. We appreciate light because of our experience with darkness. But we don’t appreciate or even recognize order simply because we never experienced randomness and what it would truly entail.

All living organisms exhibit perfection as manifested in its body plan balanced morphological features and developmental characteristics with the necessary functions to allow the organism to successfully survive and reproduce with its niche.

The ability of a living organism to successfully survive/reproduce is an absolute prerequisite before any evolutionary process may take place. The emergence of live is not dependent on any evolutionary process; on the contrary no evolutionary process is possible without life as a necessary prerequisite.

The alleged random evolutionary process is always working on the transformation of one already perfect living organism (as explained above) into another.

Logical errors:

A) If the process is random, then selection as a purifying force should not only be involved in the transforming one perfect living organism into another but rather the vast majority of the purification process should be mainly involved in constant correction/elimination of millions of all kind of random errors in a tedious and extremely slow process as entailed by the hypothesis of random gradual change. We don’t see that in nature.

B) If speciation happens mainly due geographic isolation (the new species can no longer interbreed with original species), then the new species will coexist independently along side with original species. Speciation is not a reason for original species to go extinct. This gradual sequencing necessarily predicts enormous number of species and transitional forms, both alive and in the fossil record. We don’t see that in nature.

A team of researchers in Switzerland took a hox gene from a mouse embryo (one that controls the location of an eye) and inserted it into the DNA of developing fruit fly embryo in a region of the fly that would become the back leg
It grew a fruit fly eye next to it’s back leg the instruction of the hox gene from the mouse was not how to make an eye but simply but an eye here. If the alleged evolutionary process is random (not intelligently guided) then we should see all sorts of similar errors such as limbs longer on one side, or body parts in the wrong locations, multiple repeated parts or at least the rigid reflectional symmetry would be broken. We don’t see that in nature.

How the process unfolds is nothing but a clear manifestation of extreme intelligence. It’s impossible to be a product of randomness, because if it was then we have to see evidence of all sorts of random errors (as explained above) that are being constantly corrected through selection. We don’t see that in nature.

Mutations are not random. Genetic evidence is the strongest evidence for the “intelligently guided process”. All careful studies of mutagenesis confirmed that not only mutations are not random, but also proteins did not evolve via gradual accumulation of change.

Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed. - YouTube

Neither genetic evidence support the alleged random change nor the fossil record supports the alleged gradual random transformation via natural selection. The theory is false.

Such a long list of tripe. Dishonestly edited videos are not evidence.

You need the original article.That video was less than a minute long. Why? Because it can be used to confuse the ignorant. Your alarm bells should have gone off. Why such a short clip of a long talk?

 

[danieldemol]

It’s not hypothetical, it’s confirmed by paleontologist. See #352.

Incompleteness is not the word paleontologist use. The correct description of the fossil record is “no support for gradual change”.

Stephen Jay Gould said “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions OFFERS NO SUPPORT FOR GRADUAL CHANGE. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." (Natural History, pp. 22, 24.)

'Stephen Jay Gould is best known for the theory of punctuated equilibrium which proposes that evolution of species is not a slow, gradual process of change, but in fact consists of long periods of stability broken by shorter periods of rapid change.'
Source: Stephen Jay Gould - Biography, Facts and Pictures

If you look at the unbolded part of the quote you provided, "transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt" you can see Gould's acknowledgement that transitions exist.

'Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin[7] is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.'

Source: Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia.

In other words presumably Darwin was wrong about evolution being a steady gradual process, instead the process of change is relatively rapid in relatively short periods followed by longer periods of no or little change. But it is still evolution, and since Darwin is not some sort of infallible Prophet, disproving the minor details of his ideas does not disprove evolution in it's entirety, it simply means that our ideas about how evolution occurs had to be modified.

The 375 mya Tiktaalik cannot be the missing transitional form between fish and the first four-legged creature because the 395 mya footprints of four-legged creatures found in poland (18 million years older than Tiktaalik) disproves Tiktaalik as the transitional link.

2010, Nature wrote “Some prints, showing individual digits, were found in limestone slabs unearthed in a quarry near Zachełmie, Poland, dated to about 395 million years ago — more than 18 million years before tetrapods were thought to have evolved.”
Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal - Nature

2010, NewSientist.
Oldest footprints of a four-legged vertebrate discovered | New Scientist

If those footprints are of the first four legged creature (your nature article notes that, "The find is not supported by fossil bones at the site, and palaeontologists familiar with the discovery say they have reservations about the tracks, because they may have been made by some natural process") then no one (that I know of) is saying that Tiktaalik was a transtion between fish and the first four legged creature mentioned in your nature article. But is there any reason that Tiktaalik couldn't be representative of the transtition between between non-tetrapod vertebrates (fish) such as Panderichthys, known from fossils 380 million years old, and early tetrapods such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, known from fossils about 365 million years old?

In my opinion

 

[ppp]

I gave you a specific answer that only an ignorant of evolutionary biology would disagree with (and you disagreed). Get yourself familiar with what you advocate first before you talk.

What you said is that there are no transitional forms between modern humans and an unspecified species. That is like saying that there is no road from your city to some other unspecified city. You literally have no way to determine that.

We already have a links to non human apes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What I said is specific and clear. I said, “The fossil record doesn’t support the predictions of the ToE.” We shouldn’t argue about this. It’s neither a claim nor an argument. It’s an established fact as confirmed by paleontologist. Why can’t you guys wrap your head around it? See#352

Your efforts are clear. I agree with that.

We should argue about claims that do not match the facts. Yours do not.

Your entire argument is a gap argument. We don't have all the fossils that exist, therefore the theory is falsified. There are gaps in the record, therefore the theory fails. That is nonsense.

The fossil record does support the predictions of the theory of evolution. Just because fossilization is a random, rare process and finding those fossils that do exist is difficult is not evidence of a failed theory of evolution based on a lack of fossils. This is such a superficial denial with a long history of abuse and, equally, repudiation.

Stephen J. Gould said “Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"

It seems to be some sort of cookie cutter creationism to always include quote mines to support denied evidence and/or willful misinterpretation of evidence.

The complete context of the quote regarded the mode of evolution and not a denial of evolution by Gould. Gould was writing in support of a mode of evolution. He was arguing against gradualism. But even his saltation would occur over millions of years. It is based on geological suddenness and not human lifetime suddenness.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If it’s not in the ancestral line, then it’s not an intermediate. Without intermediates simply there is no evolution.

That is not a law. And not in direct line does not mean not in the ancestral line.

A lack of intermediates and a lack of evidence for all intermediates in the fossil record are not equivalent statements. Just because all fossils have not been found does not falsify the theory of evolution.

The ToE predicts millions of intermediates (Transitional forms). If real world observations contradict the predictions of the theory, the theory is false.

Except that observations don't contradict predictions of the theory.

Are you suggesting that you believe that everything that ever lived left fossilized remains and that we should be able to find all of them and our failure to find all of them is evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution.

Tell me that isn't what you are selling here.

This is actually ridiculous; I’m not demanding any thing. I’m only asserting the facts with respect to real world observations in the fossil record. Simply intermediates are absent in the fossil record. That’s what it is. Live with it.

You are claiming gaps function to support your views. That is ridiculous.

False dichotomy

No. It is a fact. The falsification of the theory of evolution or any scientific theory does not operate under a principle of default. Such falsification does not mean that a particular view automatically replaces the theory.

I know its long. I don’t see how to make shorter.

I wonder if you have even tried. I wonder further if it a written form of a Gish gallop done to swamp and confuse readers.

Your posts could be pared down and more fitting to the medium.

Here is your argument as I see it. There are gaps. Therefore every claim of the theory of evolution by science is wrong.

It does not get more concise than that.

A serious reader would read.

There's a no true Scotsman fallacy.

What you read or not is your concern.

Obviously, that is not true. You post publicly. That implies you want to be heard (read). You respond to comments. You have a point you want others to see and follow. I don't believe that you don't care whether I read your posts or not.

Sounds like an honest advice. Here is a clarification, you can take it or leave it but just know that I'm here to help others to see things from a different perspective not to be an opponent to any one.

Thanks for the advice but making a point without the supporting evidence or reasons is illogical. It would disrupt a logical flow of an argument and automatically renders a point false. (This is what evolutionists typically do)

I do not believe that is correct and I have seen nothing here to support that claim. This seems more like a sour grapes response from a crumbling position.

What you read or not is your concern. But if you neither read nor understand a post, it means that your argument against it is not credible.

I do understand your posts. And the volume appears more to swamp your reader than enlighten them. They could easily be pared down and made more comprehensible. But your main effort is pretty clear, even though it is failed as indicated by the comments you have received.

 

[cladking]

In other words presumably Darwin was wrong about evolution being a steady gradual process, instead the process of change is relatively rapid in relatively short periods followed by longer periods of no or little change. But it is still evolution, and since Darwin is not some sort of infallible Prophet, disproving the minor details of his ideas does not disprove evolution in it's entirety, it simply means that our ideas about how evolution occurs had to be modified.

No. It is not at "Evolution" if Gould is wrong and it's not "short periods of abrupt change" but "sudden change" as I suggest. That this change has nothing to do with survival of the fittest makes Darwin wrong. He is utterly wrong about the nature and cause of change in species.

Species change but they do not evolve.

 

[cladking]

What you said is that there are no transitional forms between modern humans and an unspecified species. That is like saying that there is no road from your city to some other unspecified city. You literally have no way to determine that.

!

You are assuming Evolution exists therefore there must be a path. There is no road between Washington and Moscow. There is no shallow and gradual path to the top of Mt Everest.

Reality is binary, not analog.

 

[cladking]

The fossil record does support the predictions of the theory of evolution.

Yes. We have a winner!!!!!

Every theory based on observation supports the theory of the observer.

Peers are right by definition until they are proven wrong (at least according to skeptics).

 

[cladking]

Thanks for the advice but making a point without the supporting evidence or reasons is illogical. It would disrupt a logical flow of an argument and automatically renders a point false. (This is what evolutionists typically do)

Most skeptics' argument consists of calling people names and gainsaying them. Most have only read the books but don't really understand the material.

Fortunately there are still a few true skeptics around.

I personally always appreciate a good argument even when it works against my own.

Thanks for bringing up Gould. I should have been familiar with his work but somehow missed him.

I think people don't realize how flexible life is on every single level and taxonomy. Trees seemingly grow out of solid stone and species change suddenly when a new niche appears. Ofttimes they all pretty much change at once. Mutations keep every individual and species on its toes. Life is consciousness very much as reality is change. All things are founded in logic.

 

[cladking]

All things are founded in logic.

That God is the foundation of logic is no better and no worse than ANY other hypothesis. We have no means at this time of addressing the question. We don't understand the nature of reality, consciousness, life, or change in species. How are we to address any really important question from our position of virtually perfect ignorance?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Correct, simply an intermediate along the evolutionary line of development from a common ancestor to present species.



I don’t. You deny that intermediates are absent in the fossil record as confirmed by paleontologists. Again see#352.

Few fossils are interpreted as evidence but the interpretation in light of a one unfalsifiable hypothesis is not credible.

The bottom line is, the theory entails the existence of millions of transitional fossils, if hardly any is found and with major problems, it clearly discredit the theory.

I have not denied there are gaps. I am pointing out to you that gaps in our knowledge of some details is not evidence falsifying the present theory of evolution.

Following your notion, anyone can deny anything by pointing to a single gap.

What is this unfalsifiable hypothesis you mention? Intelligent design?

 

[ppp]

You are assuming Evolution exists therefore there must be a path.

Evolution is a process that consists of several observable mechanisms. No assumption is required.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. We have a winner!!!!!

Every theory based on observation supports the theory of the observer.

Peers are right by definition until they are proven wrong (at least according to skeptics).

No, you are again very very wrong. What makes science, science, is that one must have a way to test one's ideas and there has to be a possibility of failure. Of finding something that shows that you are wrong. Is it possible that evolution is wrong? Yes. We can form all sorts of ways to test it. Has it ever been shown to be wrong? No, at least not on the large scale. Minor changes have been made as we learn more, but the basic theory is stronger than ever.

But you are somewhat right. The reason that "Every theory based on observation supports the theory of the observer. " is generally true is that because if we ever do make such an observation the idea is no longer a theory. To be a theory one's idea has to have not been shown to be wrong yet. Do not conflate that with being impossible to being shown wrong.