Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

No, it is not all sudden. You have been given examples many times.

...And you've won every argument but can't seem to link to where you won it or to provide even the shortest recap of it. You can't find where you provided examples but you know you did.

 

[YoursTrue]

What does this have to do with evolution and the theory of evolution? Was it sudden change? He took over 70 years to get where was, but that last thing--the death--that was sudden. Or maybe not.

Yes, it does have to do with evolution. I don't know what he meant by his reported last words, I can only guess. But if my guess is right, it does have to do with the theory of evolution. Anyway, have a good night.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it is not all sudden. You have been given examples many times. The best that you can do is to try to redefine "change".

You keep challenging what the Bible says, and I don't blame you to an extent. But for the most part, those texts have remained the same -- (I said for the MOST PART) -- the posits as in the creation account have ot changed, unlike the continual upturns of scientists regarding the theory of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is evidence for genetic change and for change in the gene frequencies over time. We even have a name for that. It's called...evolution.

There is no evidence that shows-demonstrates-tests and forbid the word, proves that humans evolved from fish, and/or plants. There is definitely evidence that populations can arise with short legs or long legs for the majority, based on interbreeding.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not sure what it means considering that the sun, moon and stars were not created until later in the story.

You're not reading it right. The two accounts are from different perspectives. But anyway have a good night.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You keep challenging what the Bible says, and I don't blame you to an extent. But for the most part, those texts have remained the same -- (I said for the MOST PART) -- the posits as in the creation account have ot changed, unlike the continual upturns of scientists regarding the theory of evolution.

This post makes no sense. What does it matter what the Bible says? The Bible is not a science book. If one reads it literally that is the easiest version of Christianity to refute. There are events in the Bible that are laughably wrong. For example do you believe the Noah's Ark myth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're not reading it right. The two accounts are from different perspectives. But anyway have a good night.

Nope. But I can understand why one cannot face reality.

Do you know roughly when Genesis was written?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no evidence that shows-demonstrates-tests and forbid the word, proves that humans evolved from fish, and/or plants. There is definitely evidence that populations can arise with short legs or long legs for the majority, based on interbreeding.

LOL! There is endless evidence. I keep offering to help you to learn the concept. Right now there rare only two options. You are either lying. Or you have no clue as to what is and what is not evidence.

Why does learning what is and what is not evidence scare you so much?

 

[Subduction Zone]

...And you've won every argument but can't seem to link to where you won it or to provide even the shortest recap of it. You can't find where you provided examples but you know you did.

Why would I bother to do that? Only losers tend to do that. They appear to be very delusional when the refer back to arguments that they lost.

As to gradual change we can see it in specific bedding. Chalk deposits have foraminifera evolving as one gets closer and closer to the surface. There are other similar examples. Just because it is change that you do not understand does not mean that it did not happen.

By the way, why this odd fixation with the fossil record? Is it some sort of sexual fetish of yours?

 

[LIIA]

When some says 2 + 2 = 5 and I correct them do I need to support that? Give me a serious claim that is well supported and then I will provide evidence. Or admit that you did not understand part of a refutation and I will go into more detail. You have not made any serious arguments here.

And there you go demonstrating your ignorance again. None of the mechanisms of evolution in the modern synthesis were refuted. Yes, new mechanisms have been found. Science is ever refining itself. You can't seem to understand this. You found authors involved in some of those new mechanisms that tended to over value their own discoveries. That does not refute the old mechanisms. You grab onto any article that you can improperly reinterpret as evidence against evolution when they are only minor tweaks to the theory. All of the authors that you cite accept the fact of evolution, they only vary slightly on the mechanisms.

It’s your typical meaningless denial. Anyways, I’m not expecting anything else from you.

First, I’m not making any claim; I’m only informing you and others of the latest in the field, which you may not be aware of. I share the info and support every word.

Second, the article clearly stated that "all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) HAVE BEEN DISPROVED”, which is definitely not equal to your claimed “minor tweaks to the theory" or " they only vary slightly on the mechanisms”.

Actually, claiming that “entirely disproved mechanisms" is equal to “slight variation of the mechanism” is exactly like claiming that 2+2=5. Why should I or anyone else take such poor math and reading skills seriously? You’re free to insist on outdated science and mere denial/wishful thinking but don’t expect others to do the same merely because it’s your ignorant wish.

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology (wiley.com)

And you are equally wrong about abiogenesis. Evolution, of course, does not rely on abiogenesis. When you bring that up you are moving the goalposts. You are conceding the evolution argument. Are you sure that you want to do that?

“Bring that up”!!! Are you serious? Is it the first time we discuss abiogenesis on this thread? You simply had nothing to say about my argument concerning abiogenesis in #3833 and just trying to play a silly trick as your typical escape route. Pathetic.

Regardless of your silly tricks but both subjects (ToE & abiogenesis) are related. After all, without the first life, no evolutionary process is possible. Even Darwin understood this fact.

 

[LIIA]

Sorry, but you definitely do not qualify for a discussion on morality. If it takes a book of myths to keep you moral that presents a rather negative picture of you. Even I do not think that poorly of you. You are merely misled. You are not immoral.

It’s again your typical escape route, every time I question your reference for morality or its meaning to you, you try these tricks to avoid answering the question.

Morality like anything else is relative. Without a defining reference, how can you claim anything to be moral or immoral?

On my end, Islam is the defining reference for morality. Islam touches on every aspect of the human conduct and defines a clear reference for morality. It’s a long and complex subject that doesn’t fit in this thread. You and others may not know about it other than some ignorant stereotyping. Don’t get me wrong; I don’t blame you for it.

Just to touch briefly on the subject, Islam teaches that human beings should follow a life of principles, characterized by the best moral virtues, and to avoid wrongful behavior. Man’s sense of morals/ability to differentiate between what is good/righteous and what is bad/evil is among the essential characteristics, which distinguish man from animals. I.e., The ability to know and value truthfulness, honesty, fair dealing, generosity, courageousness, equality, fairness, justice, mercy, compassion, solidarity, trust, respect and all praiseworthy moral behavior while refraining from lying, cheating, betrayal, being unjust, deceitful, hypocritical and all bad morals that cause harm to the person or the society at large.

The Messenger said:

“Indeed, the most perfect among the believers is of the best of morals.”

 

[LIIA]

Do you know what "click bait" is? They sure have your number. None of your sources even try to refute evolution. Once again, they are only tweaking the mechanisms at most. Yes, we have some new mechanisms and they need to be accepted.

So what?

As I said many times, all my sources are from the other side of the argument. I.e., mainstream sources that support evolution. Evolutionists like yourself wouldn’t accept otherwise, would you?

That said, my sources do not try to refute evolution, yes, they may hold evolution as an axiom but nonetheless, my sources indeed DISPROVED all fundamental assumptions of the contemporary ToE, I.e., the Modern Synthesis. My sources claimed the traditional theoretical edifice of the contemporary ToE to be fatuous.

Logically, if all fundamental assumptions of a theory are disproved, the theory is necessarily false. Until a framework for a new synthesis is agreed upon, you have nothing. It’s a fact. Denial wouldn’t change it. Deal with it.

See #753, #781 & #911.

 

[LIIA]

No, the Cambrian explosion was not an explosion. It was at least twenty million years long. It still shows gradual change. When you use discredited sources you lose the argument.

The Cambrian period was much longer than that but it’s totally irrelevant.

The point is that the enormous diversification of life of the Cambrian period appeared without any evolutionary history. There were no transitional steps to explain the Cambrian life. There was no gradual change to give rise to the Cambrian life, do you understand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s your typical meaningless denial. Anyways, I’m not expecting anything else from you.

First, I’m not making any claim; I’m only informing you and others of the latest in the field, which you may not be aware of. I share the info and support every word.

Second, the article clearly stated that "all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) HAVE BEEN DISPROVED”, which is definitely not equal to your claimed “minor tweaks to the theory" or " they only vary slightly on the mechanisms”.

Actually, claiming that “entirely disproved mechanisms" is equal to “slight variation of the mechanism” is exactly like claiming that 2+2=5. Why should I or anyone else take such poor math and reading skills seriously? You’re free to insist on outdated science and mere denial/wishful thinking but don’t expect others to do the same merely because it’s your ignorant wish.

View attachment 72262


View attachment 72263

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology (wiley.com)



“Bring that up”!!! Are you serious? Is it the first time we discuss abiogenesis on this thread? You simply had nothing to say about my argument concerning abiogenesis in #3833 and just trying to play a silly trick as your typical escape route. Pathetic.

Regardless of your silly tricks but both subjects (ToE & abiogenesis) are related. After all, without the first life, no evolutionary process is possible. Even Darwin understood this fact.

LOL! You don't "disprove" widely accepted science by one person's not very well accepted paper.

If you want to claim that natural selection has been disproved you need to be able to support it a lot better than that. The same goes for variation and other mechanisms.

And thank you for referring to one of your lost arguments again.

You appear to be a masochist.

EDIT: Your source that supposedly refuted the new synthesis is not even peer reviewed. It is merely a lecture. Do you know how weak that is when you want to claim to have refuted something?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Cambrian period was much longer than that but it’s totally irrelevant.

The point is that the enormous diversification of life of the Cambrian period appeared without any evolutionary history. There were no transitional steps to explain the Cambrian life. There was no gradual change to give rise to the Cambrian life, do you understand?

Not true. Your information is fifty years out of date. Haven't you heard of the Ediacaran?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s again your typical escape route, every time I question your reference for morality or its meaning to you, you try these tricks to avoid answering the question.

Morality like anything else is relative. Without a defining reference, how can you claim anything to be moral or immoral?

On my end, Islam is the defining reference for morality. Islam touches on every aspect of the human conduct and defines a clear reference for morality. It’s a long and complex subject that doesn’t fit in this thread. You and others may not know about it other than some ignorant stereotyping. Don’t get me wrong; I don’t blame you for it.

Just to touch briefly on the subject, Islam teaches that human beings should follow a life of principles, characterized by the best moral virtues, and to avoid wrongful behavior. Man’s sense of morals/ability to differentiate between what is good/righteous and what is bad/evil is among the essential characteristics, which distinguish man from animals. I.e., The ability to know and value truthfulness, honesty, fair dealing, generosity, courageousness, equality, fairness, justice, mercy, compassion, solidarity, trust, respect and all praiseworthy moral behavior while refraining from lying, cheating, betrayal, being unjust, deceitful, hypocritical and all bad morals that cause harm to the person or the society at large.

The Messenger said:

“Indeed, the most perfect among the believers is of the best of morals.”

The basis for morality is "relative". But once one decides on a base then the morality that arises out of that need not be relative. And a relative morality can be far superior to an " absolute" one. Your morality is probably inferior to mine.

Instead of demonstrating incredible ignorance in almost every topic that you pick, why not try to be more specific in your arguments? You might actually win one if you can build a decent basic idea of a science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All science is based on experiment.

No.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didn't say it was.

Then your comment was utterly irrelevant in context of the topic.

I said all observed change in all life of all types, categories, and levels is sudden

It's not.

Every change ever observed is sudden

No.

but YOU interpret the fossil record to show gradual change.

I don't. Paleontologists do.
I'm a software engineer.

You ignore the fact that even biologists often interpret these changes as being sudden.

They don't. Not in the way you mean it, at least.
When evolutionary scientists speak about "sudden change", they speak about geological time. They speak about an accelerated evolutionary trend due to shifting local optimums as a result of environmental changes. These "sudden" changes are only "sudden" in context of geological time. They are still gradual.

This has been explained to you on countless occasions.

You ignore the evidence, experiment, and every part of opposing arguments and you see gradual change. When asked to show gradual change you just freeze up.

Evolution works by the gradual build-up of micro change, which is seen in EVERY SINGLE reproduction event and EVERY SINGLE speciation event.

It works through the gradual accumulation of small changes leading to big changes over time.

We have ZERO examples of anything else.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You keep challenging what the Bible says, and I don't blame you to an extent. But for the most part, those texts have remained the same -- (I said for the MOST PART) -- the posits as in the creation account have ot changed, unlike the continual upturns of scientists regarding the theory of evolution.

That only tells us that creation myths are allergic to correcting their mistakes.

 

[Audie]

That only tells us that creation myths are allergic to correcting their mistakes.

Amazing how many people think they are infallible.