Darwin's Illusion

[shunyadragon]

You might find this surprising but I do not reject evolution (I am person B) I am the one who is claiming that evolution is a solid and robust theory and that a single “out of place” fossil is not enough to overcome all those 200 years of evidence that you mentioned.

More than any sort of surprise considering the above a dishonest response considering years of your posts rejecting evolution. You are the one picking frog hairs and looking for rabbits in Cambrian rocks. I already said the original post was ridiculous beyond belief and probably should not even have responded.

Given 200 years of research and discoveries no alternative hypothesis has ever been presented that explains the evidence.

No over the history of discoveries fossils and evidence have been found 'out of place' so to speak and because science is flexible when new information the sciences of evolution change.

Find the rabbit fossil or any mammal fossil in Cambrian rocks and I will address the issue in terms of the reality of the find.

 

[leroy]

That is because you distort the arguments of others. Probably due to a combination of you not understanding the science and the influence of your creationist beliefs. You were wrong in principle about natural selection.

Again you are making random accusations without any support.

What arguments have I distorted?.......... what mistakes did I make with regards to natural selection? where did I missunderstood science?

 

[shunyadragon]

Again you are making random accusations without any support.

What arguments have I distorted?.......... what mistakes did I make with regards to natural selection? where did I missunderstood science?

leroy said:
You might find this surprising but I do not reject evolution (I am person B) I am the one who is claiming that evolution is a solid and robust theory and that a single “out of place” fossil is not enough to overcome all those 200 years of evidence that you mentioned.

 

[shunyadragon]

leroy said:
You might find this surprising but I do not reject evolution (I am person B) I am the one who is claiming that evolution is a solid and robust theory and that a single “out of place” fossil is not enough to overcome all those 200 years of evidence that you mentioned.

 

[leroy]

More than any sort of surprise considering the above a dishonest response considering years of your posts rejecting evolution. You are the one picking frog hairs and looking for rabbits in Cambrian rocks. I already said the original post was ridiculous beyond belief and probably should not even have responded.

Given 200 years of research and discoveries no alternative hypothesis has ever been presented that explains the evidence.

No over the history of discoveries fossils and evidence have been found 'out of place' so to speak and because science is flexible when new information the sciences of evolution change.

Find the rabbit fossil or any mammal fossil in Cambrian rocks and I will address the issue in terms of the reality of the find.

You are probably confusing me with another person, I have never rejected the theory of evolution………….. at most I have expressed doubt on the mechanisms responsible for evolution –

I simply asked if a single “out of place fossil” would falsify evolution ………. I do not understand why you find this question ridiculous

Find the rabbit fossil or any mammal fossil in Cambrian rocks and I will address the issue in terms of the reality of the find.

how about pollen in the precambrian

PRECAMBRIAN POLLEN IN THE GRAND CANYON

origins.swau.edu

My bet is that you (like any other reasonable person) would argue that this is caused by contamination………… you would not even think about rejecting the whole theory of evolution just because we found this small apparent inconsistency

 

[leroy]

leroy said:
You might find this surprising but I do not reject evolution (I am person B) I am the one who is claiming that evolution is a solid and robust theory and that a single “out of place” fossil is not enough to overcome all those 200 years of evidence that you mentioned.

, are there any mistakes in that statement?

 

[shunyadragon]

You are probably confusing me with another person, I have never rejected the theory of evolution………….. at most I have expressed doubt on the mechanisms responsible for evolution –

I simply asked if a single “out of place fossil” would falsify evolution ………. I do not understand why you find this question ridiculous


how about pollen in the precambrian

PRECAMBRIAN POLLEN IN THE GRAND CANYON

origins.swau.edu

My bet is that you (like any other reasonable person) would argue that this is caused by contamination………… you would not even think about rejecting the whole theory of evolution just because we found this small apparent inconsistency

I believe as a fact that yes your supposed doubt is a historical rejection of evolution. Yes your claim is dishonest given your history, and this ridiculous 'rabbit; scenario'

You're apparently basing a supposed argument on one ridiculous example.

Find the rabbit fossil and I will deal with it, and stop splitting frog hairs to justify your rejection of evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

, are there any mistakes in that statement?

It is a dishonest statement given your history of posts.

 

[leroy]

It is a dishonest statement given your history of posts.

What history? What posts?.......... you are confusing me with someone else

Yes I am skeptic about the claim that complex stuff like eyes evolved through the mechanism of just random mutations and natural selection , but that doesn’t mean I reject evolution,

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again you are making random accusations without any support.

What arguments have I distorted?.......... what mistakes did I make with regards to natural selection? where did I missunderstood science?

No, you are wrong again. My accusations are not random. And until you debate properly you cannot demand support. You keep forgetting that you are on corrections only.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What history? What posts?.......... you are confusing me with someone else

Yes I am skeptic about the claim that complex stuff like eyes evolved through the mechanism of just random mutations and natural selection , but that doesn’t mean I reject evolution,

Everyone is on to your games. You might learn something if you changed your ways and people would be willing to help you. You are demonstrably wrong, but wouldn't you rather learn so that you could be right for once in the future?

And no, you are not a skeptic. A skeptic follows the evidence and you have to know by now that all of the evidence supports evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

well Lets look for a judge

person A Said that a single rabbit fossil in the Precambrian (or something equivalent) would falsify evolution

Person B said, that evolution is a robust theory and you need more than a single “out of place fossil” (like a rabbit in the Precambrian) to falsify that theory.

Who do you think is correct.

Lets see if any of them whants to be the judge
@shunyadragon @exchemist @It Aint Necessarily So

who is correct person A or Person B?

Why do you go out of your way to create ridiculous strawman arguments? If you cannot get your opponents arguments correct your exercise is pointless. This is, as has been pointed out to you by at least one other, is dishonest.

 

[shunyadragon]

What history? What posts?.......... you are confusing me with someone else

Yes I am skeptic about the claim that complex stuff like eyes evolved through the mechanism of just random mutations and natural selection , but that doesn’t mean I reject evolution,

Your ridiculous post on a fossil rabbit in the Cambrian and your attitude concerning how evidence is handled is more than enough to document your dishonesty concerning the fact that you reject evolution. Yes, the history of your posts concerning your bogus claim of skepticism and doubt is more than enough too reinforce your rejection of evolution.

This scenario of the 'rabbit fossil' either reflects your (1) total dishonesty concerning how the falsification of hypotheses and theories in science, or your (2) Total ignorance as to how science works,
I go for #1

Methodological Naturalism is a process of falsification that has strong functional honest skepticism and is always subject to change when new information is discovered.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Neuropterons never claimed that spontaneous generation is true. His point is simply that at the time Darwin was working on his theory, he was not aware that spontaneous generation is false. How could he if he already published the origin of species in the same year when Louis Pasteur did his experiment in 1859?

At Darwin’s time it was understood that the emergence of relatively complex life such as maggots or fleas could arise from nonliving matter regularly and relatively quickly. They didn’t have any awareness of the complexity of the living systems.

Before Louis Pasteur experiment in 1859, Darwin thought that life is something simple that can get spontaneously generated in a warm little pond and then diversify.

Yes. And that is why there is the concept of "irreducible complexity" in organisms.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, there is always a degree of tentativeness in any scientific statement. It's likely that matter self-organized into the first life (chemical evolution, or naturalistic abiogenesis) and then the tree of life including extinct forms (biological evolution).

...

From what I understand so far, many believe there IS no question about evolution, the theory of.

 

[ppp]

From what I understand so far, many believe there IS no question about evolution, the theory of.

There are still many questions about evolution.

• How major extinction events have shaped the course of evolution and what it means for modern biodiversity is a subject of concern and study, especially in the context of human-caused extinctions.
• How epigenetic changes (changes in gene expression rather than DNA sequence) influence evolution and are influenced by evolutionary processes is a growing field of study.
• The role of sexual selection in evolution and how it interacts with natural selection is still being explored. Why certain extravagant traits evolve and how they contribute to fitness can be counterintuitive and is an area of ongoing research.
• Understanding how complex traits are encoded genetically and how they evolve is a rich field of ongoing study.
• and many more

Thing that are certain about evolution

• Life on Earth has changed significantly over geological time scales. Fossil records clearly demonstrate the transition and transformation of species.
• All known organisms are related and can be traced back to a common ancestor. This is supported by the universal genetic code and other molecular evidence.
• Traits that confer an advantage in an organism's environment tend to be passed on more frequently. Over time, this can lead to changes in a population and the development of new species.
• Random mutations in genes provide the raw material for evolution. These mutations create genetic variation, and natural selection acts on this variation.
• he process by which new species form is well-understood. It often occurs when populations become isolated from each other, and genetic differences accumulate to the point where the populations can no longer interbreed.
• Evolution is not a process confined to the past; it continues to occur today. We can observe it in action in various ways, such as the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
• Evolutionary biology has substantial predictive power. For example, the discovery of Tiktaalik, a transitional fossil between fish and land-dwelling animals, was predicted based on evolutionary theory.
• etc

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. And that is why there is the concept of "irreducible complexity" in organisms.

No, irreducible complexity is refuted creationist pseudoscience. You should watch the PBS video about the Dover Trial.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From what I understand so far, many believe there IS no question about evolution, the theory of.

Is there any question about the existence of gravity? There is more scientific evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for gravity. If you say that there is no question about the existence of gravity then by the same standards you have to accept evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are still many questions about evolution.

• How major extinction events have shaped the course of evolution and what it means for modern biodiversity is a subject of concern and study, especially in the context of human-caused extinctions.
• How epigenetic changes (changes in gene expression rather than DNA sequence) influence evolution and are influenced by evolutionary processes is a growing field of study.
• The role of sexual selection in evolution and how it interacts with natural selection is still being explored. Why certain extravagant traits evolve and how they contribute to fitness can be counterintuitive and is an area of ongoing research.
• Understanding how complex traits are encoded genetically and how they evolve is a rich field of ongoing study.
• and many more

Thing that are certain about evolution

• Life on Earth has changed significantly over geological time scales. Fossil records clearly demonstrate the transition and transformation of species.
• All known organisms are related and can be traced back to a common ancestor. This is supported by the universal genetic code and other molecular evidence.
• Traits that confer an advantage in an organism's environment tend to be passed on more frequently. Over time, this can lead to changes in a population and the development of new species.
• Random mutations in genes provide the raw material for evolution. These mutations create genetic variation, and natural selection acts on this variation.
• he process by which new species form is well-understood. It often occurs when populations become isolated from each other, and genetic differences accumulate to the point where the populations can no longer interbreed.
• Evolution is not a process confined to the past; it continues to occur today. We can observe it in action in various ways, such as the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
• Evolutionary biology has substantial predictive power. For example, the discovery of Tiktaalik, a transitional fossil between fish and land-dwelling animals, was predicted based on evolutionary theory.
• etc

Allow me to clarify. I have read assertions by believers in evolution that it is not a theory but a law. Not sure that makes a big difference to the idea about scientific concepts.

 

[YoursTrue]

Is there any question about the existence of gravity? There is more scientific evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for gravity. If you say that there is no question about the existence of gravity then by the same standards you have to accept evolution.

Oh I was wondering where you were. And guess what? I thought someone would mention about gravity. Gravity is considered a law. Whatever that means. Like immutable??? I'm not going to contest it. Or look for sidelines. You may say evolution fits the same type of category (like law, true, proved, etc.). I do not agree.