Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

Don’t you believe that you as a monkey and your horse cousin are descendants of your same Grand Pa Tiktaalik? Why do you talk as if the horse is not family?

You too have the same ancestors. If you want to claim that you are a horse or perhaps turkey then it would be longer before our lines met and joined. A horse is family. It is merely a more distant relation.

You didn’t say anything. We talked multiple times before about the other famous E. coli experiment. And as I explained multiple times, it was also an example of directed mutation.

Bu tit isn't. You were wrong in that claim. If you want to claim that a change in nature is "directed" then yes, evolution was directed largely by changes in natural habitat. But there is no evidence of a god of any sort.

 

[LIIA]

Oh my, even a million years is sudden in geologic time. You are simply not listening. You have no clue of what punctuated equilibrium is . How do you think that you can use it as a weapon?

Yes, a million years is sudden, but a thousand year is a demolition of gradualism. Do you understand?
punctuated equilibrium model | biology | Britannica

 

[Subduction Zone]

You wish, but sorry, you don’t get to make your own (convenient) rules

Sure I do. If you refuse to follow the rules of proper debate then I get to make my own rules.

Can you debate properly? You will lose either way, but a proper debate is the honorable way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, a million years is sudden, but a thousand year is a demolition of gradualism. Do you understand?
punctuated equilibrium model | biology | Britannica

LOL! You are the one lacking understanding and no, not even a thousand years demolishes gradualism. That would of course depend upon the species. It a species had a generation of only one year that is still a thousand generations. One can have a lot of changes over a thousand generations. It would still be a sudden change. For our ape ancestors that would be about 70 to 100 generations. But our change was slower. That "even a thousand years" probably dealt with animals with rather short generations. As written the thousand year example appear to be a maximum and not the norm. A million is probably closer to the norm.

 

[LIIA]

You too have the same ancestors. If you want to claim that you are a horse or perhaps turkey then it would be longer before our lines met and joined. A horse is family. It is merely a more distant relation.

I’m glad you don’t exclude the horse as a family member.

evolution was directed largely by changes in natural habitat.

Do you mean mutations are not random?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m glad you don’t exclude the horse as a family member.

I would never deny my relationship to you.

Do you mean mutations are not random?

Nope. I did not say that or imply that. If you look at mutations as a stochastic process then they may not be random. With any large population there are going to be odds for certain mutations to exist. If one changes the environment suddenly what used to be neutral mutation could suddenly become beneficial.

I can give an example of a mutation that depending upon environment can be either beneficial or detrimental.

 

[rational experiences]

LOL! You are the one lacking understanding and no, not even a thousand years demolishes gradualism. That would of course depend upon the species. It a species had a generation of only one year that is still a thousand generations. One can have a lot of changes over a thousand generations. It would still be a sudden change. For our ape ancestors that would be about 70 to 100 generations. But our change was slower. That "even a thousand years" probably dealt with animals with rather short generations. As written the thousand year example appear to be a maximum and not the norm. A million is probably closer to the norm.

If men want to give God a name it's why you don't accept any answer ever given.

I said out loud AI I wish you'd shut up. Just like my brother non stop word use. Must be self possessed as a human theist.

Say if God was an infinite 1 and 0 you'd say it was 10 lying.

You then ask what God is your topic. As he uses personal just one ...selves mens motivation.

He actually doesn't tell you what God he wants given a number or a name.

So he proves he's possessed about a man thinking with men.

 

[LIIA]

LOL! You are the one lacking understanding and no, not even a thousand years demolishes gradualism. That would of course depend upon the species. It a species had a generation of only one year that is still a thousand generations. One can have a lot of changes over a thousand generations. It would still be a sudden change. For our ape ancestors that would be about 70 to 100 generations. But our change was slower. That "even a thousand years" probably dealt with animals with rather short generations. As written the thousand year example appear to be a maximum and not the norm. A million is probably closer to the norm.

No, Stasis dominates the history of most fossil species; PE was not about or limited to single-celled organisms or one year generation species.

Britannica wrote “punctuated equilibrium, a revision of Darwinian theory proposing that the creation of new species through evolutionary change occurs not at slow, constant rates over millions of years but rather in rapid bursts over periods as short as thousands of years"

 

[LIIA]

I would never deny my relationship to you.

You’re a nice guy. You don’t even deny your relationship to a turkey.

Nope. I did not say that or imply that. If you look at mutations as a stochastic process then they may not be random. With any large population there are going to be odds for certain mutations to exist. If one changes the environment suddenly what used to be neutral mutation could suddenly become beneficial.

I can give an example of a mutation that depending upon environment can be either beneficial or detrimental.

See # 1245

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, Stasis dominates the history of most fossil species; PE was not about or limited to single-celled organisms or one year generation species.

Britannica wrote “punctuated equilibrium, a revision of Darwinian theory proposing that the creation of new species through evolutionary change occurs not at slow, constant rates over millions of years but rather in rapid bursts over periods as short as thousands of years"

But those changes are still gradual in nature. The sudden changes are in geologic time, not biological time. Long periods of stasis. Which only makes sense. If the environment does not change there is little pressure to evolved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You’re a nice guy. You don’t even deny your relationship to a turkey.



See # 1245

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

As I said, I would never deny my relationship to you. And linking to an argument that you lost long ago is you just admitting that you were wrong.

 

[LIIA]

Sure I do. If you refuse to follow the rules of proper debate then I get to make my own rules.

Can you debate properly? You will lose either way, but a proper debate is the honorable way.

I think you neither know the proper debate rules nor can decide who is following or not following it. You don’t get to make any rules. Don’t play fallacious tricks merely to win an argument. Have a good night.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you neither know the proper debate rules nor can decide who is following or not following it. You don’t get to make any rules. Don’t play fallacious tricks merely to win an argument. Have a good night.

I have never played tricks. I have merely asked you to follow the rules of debate. You do not like it when people cheat like you did. Debate properly and that will not happen.

 

[LIIA]

As I said, I would never deny my relationship to you. And linking to an argument that you lost long ago is you just admitting that you were wrong.

How can I lose an argument that was never debated by you or anyone else? Go back to # 1245 and explain why you don’t agree. Get real.

 

[LIIA]

I have never played tricks. I have merely asked you to follow the rules of debate. You do not like it when people cheat like you did. Debate properly and that will not happen.

If you really think that you debate properly (I doubt it), you should know that you don’t.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can I lose an argument that was never debated by you or anyone else? Go back to # 1245 and explain why you don’t agree. Get real.

Nope. Not rehashing old arguments. Your link was pointless. There is one other person that has been continually refuted here so it would still be pointless. If you want to link a source make sure that it is a valid one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you really think that you debate properly (I doubt it), you should know that you don’t.

Please, now you are projecting again. I am the one that has to continually remind you to debate properly.

 

[LIIA]

Nope. Not rehashing old arguments. Your link was pointless. There is one other person that has been continually refuted here so it would still be pointless. If you want to link a source make sure that it is a valid one.

see # 1245
Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

 

[Subduction Zone]

see # 1245
Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

No that is merely al link to someone that has no clue. To refute it read the posts after it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you understand what you are doing? You’re using evidence against evolution to support evolution. Total nonsense.

Yes, they are still E.coli and there is absolutely no evidence that it would transform into anything other than E.coli but this is not the issue.

Evolution is essentially about random mutation + natural selection. Nothing of the observed behavior of E.coli was random; the change was directed and predictable. The same behavior is expected to repeat every time the experiment is repeated. Meaning, It’s not a random behavior.

You assume millions of random (non-beneficial) mutations that supposedly happened in no time at each band and then got all eliminated with the exception of the accidental mutation that happened to be beneficial. There is absolutely no evidence of such nonsense. If the process were random, the accidental beneficial mutation would not necessarily emerge every single time the experiment is repeated.

The experiment showed repeated directed successive mutations that produced a change that didn’t exist in original bacteria. The spread of bacteria stopped at each band until a mutant appeared then the mutants continued to spread to the next band and the mutation process repeated till the accumulating successive mutations adapted to over 1000-fold resistance level against antibiotics. The fast adaptation response was driven by the threat to the survival of the bacteria.

The experiment showed repeated/predictable directed mutation. The process is neither random nor gradual. It was a directed adaptation not a random evolution.

I seek the best information available. What you have to say is unimportant and I do not see your words.