Enough Time for Evolution?

[Shermana]

Thanks for showing me how much I should care about your face.

My face?

Honestly, your opinion to me is worth less than a dog's, considering you've demonstrated total inability to actually contribute anything remotely worthwhile, or show an ounce of respect, so why should I care what you care?

As far as I'm concerned, I couldn't care less about your face. I'd comment on your face but that's against the rules. Why are you commenting on mine?

And so ladies and gentlemen, we see further demonstration of the arguing ability of the other side.

 

[McBell]

My face?

Honestly, your opinion to me is worth less than a dog's, considering you've demonstrated total inability to actually contribute anything remotely worthwhile, or show an ounce of respect, so why should I care what you care?

As far as I'm concerned, I couldn't care less about your face. I'd comment on your face but that's against the rules. Why are you commenting on mine?

And so ladies and gentlemen, we see further demonstration of the arguing ability of the other side.

Just can't help yourself, can you?

 

[dust1n]

This thread resembles a first-grade classroom.

 

[Shermana]

And yet another off topic post that does nothing more than avoid the questions asked.

And you think I am the one embarrassing myself?

Since you are the one completely avoiding the topic when asked specific questions, how are you proving anyone wrong?

Methinks your transference is getting the better of you.

I answered the question, I said the observed evidence demonstrates that mutations should limit the ability for such drastic changes to survive, and there's no evidence to indicate that such drastic changes to the interior DNA can happen. Is that answer not good enough for you? If not, why not?

Besides, you have yet to address the actual contents of the Review, like most of the other scat-flingers here.

 

[savagewind]

This thread resembles a first-grade classroom.

Isn't it a blast? I don't rate many threads, actually just two. I give Shermana five boxes. And might say is true I never laughed so much about one thing, in my life. This is the best thread ever!

 

[Shermana]

Just can't help yourself, can you?

Can't help but respond to people like Luis Dantas who want to do nothing but fling scat? Well, I feel compelled to respond.

But I assume you have no problem with responses like his.

Now does anyone want to actually address the Review or are you all content to demonstrate your fearful inability to do so?

 

[LuisDantas]

My face?

Honestly, your opinion to me is worth less than a dog's, considering you've demonstrated total inability to actually contribute anything remotely worthwhile, or show an ounce of respect, so why should I care what you care?

As far as I'm concerned, I couldn't care less about your face. I'd comment on your face but that's against the rules. Why are you commenting on mine?

And so ladies and gentlemen, we see further demonstration of the arguing ability of the other side.

Because you have established a pattern of failing to understand the facts presented to you and then blaming others for that.

Maybe I shouldn't do that, though. It is not like you have done a lot to earn that right.

 

[Shermana]

This thread resembles a first-grade classroom.

Indeed.

It's very difficult to get people to actually respond to my responses.

When I ask a person to substantiate their claim which I don't believe is indicated by the text they highlight, I get told I'm "demanding them to take responsibility for my lack of biological knowledge" and then I get told I'm going off topic when I respond to a topic, and then I get accused of avoiding a question simply because they don't like the answer.

This thread has been an excellent exercise and an irrefutable proof of just how nigh on impossible it can be to get an honest debate going with actually substantiated, properly represented critiques and rebuttals.

Do they not think that anyone objectively reading can't see right through the ruse?

 

[savagewind]

Now I have to say Dustin is wrong. It's not first grade. It's a bar room brawl. (off topic)

 

[Shermana]

Because you have established a pattern of failing to understand the facts presented to you and then blaming others for that.

Maybe I shouldn't do that, though. It is not like you have done a lot to earn that right.

Ah, so because I ask a person to substantiate why they think the highlighted quote backs what they're saying, I'm "failing to understand the facts presented to me".

Meanwhile you have done absolutely nothing on this thread to promote anything close to rational discussion, all you want to do is say that I "fail to understand the facts" and then criticize me for asking someone to explain why they feel their interpretation is right when I disagree with it.

Why don't you save yourself some face and just sit in the spectator corner where you best belong and avoid further embarassing yourself.

 

[Shermana]

Now I have to say Dustin is wrong. It's not first grade. It's a bar room brawl. (off topic)

Yep, you ask people to debate honestly and substantiate their positions, and it turns into a brawl.

Methinks most Evolutionists and Naturalism-ists are simply terrified at the prospect of what honest debate and proper representation of the data might lead to.

 

[Agnostic75]

Please debate the contents itself of the following peer reviewed paper, on whether the critique on Wilf and Ewens "There's plenty of Time for Evolution" has valid points or if it is misrepresenting them.

I can put you in touch with plenty of experts who will be happy to debate that with you, and they know far more about evolution than anyone at this forum, including you.

A victory for you among laymen would prove nothing. That is obviously true since evolution has overwhelming support primarily because of support from the vast majority of experts, not because of support from laymen.

I do not know enough about evolution to adequately refute much of what you said, and you do not know enough about evolution to win a public Internet debate with most experts who disagree with you. Why should any skeptic layman at this forum be concerned if they cannot adequately refute your arguments?

Whether Dr. Newman, or his skeptic critics are wrong, if either of them are right, then you are wrong.

If you wish, I will start a new thread on the Dover trial, and you can explain why Scott Minnich was right, and why Ken Miller was wrong. Of course, you will first have to have transcripts of everything that they said.

Then, you can explain why Miller's article about the flagellum, intelligent design, and irreducible complexity at The Flagellum Unspun is wrong.

If "Aliens" are responsible, that's still basically the same thing as saying "gods". It's really Semantics.

You claimed that incremental changes cannot account for naturalistic evolution. Even if you are right, aliens could have plausibly accounted for evolution. If God created the aliens, you have won your argument about naturalism, but you have not won your argument that God created life on earth if that is what you are arguing.

You are essentially objecting to naturalism, not to evolution since if a God exists, he can cause evolution to occur in any ways that he wants to, and he does not need to use incremental changes if he does not want to.

 

[Shermana]

Okay Agnostic, if you'd like to have a Public debate on this with experts, you're welcome to invite whoever you want to this thread, hopefully they'll be willing to actually address the OP and properly represent the arguments as well as from counter sources, it would be a major improvement than what this sorry lot of Naturalism-ists have offered so far.

 

[Falvlun]

The small number of beneficial mutations and neutral ones that later prove to be beneficial for life are not "created" which is linked to the verbs "bring" (who brings what please?) and "cause" (what causes random things?- NOTHING causes randomness).

If you would prefer, replace the word "created" with "occurred" in that post. They can be used interchangeably. Note: the word "create" does not exclusively refer to an intelligent agent. It can, and is, used to refer to anything that can cause something, ie, the waves create patterns in the sand.

As for "bring" and "cause", it also might surprise you, but non-intelligent agents can also bring and cause things. (Also not sure what that had to do with my post, since I didn't actually use either of those two words in there.)

And yes, random mutations are caused by things, such as radiation, the malfunction of the mechanism, environmental toxins, etc.

The dispersal of these things "created" in a population is not applicable to the OP imo.

But the dispersal of beneficial mutations, which is what I and Shermana were talking about, is.

 

[Falvlun]

Shermana, your conclusion is that there is not enough time. Could you make a handy list of the reasons you think support that?

Such as:
1. Not enough beneficial mutations.
2. ?
3. ?
4. etc

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Isn't the benefit of a mutation only apparent when placed in a suitable environment. I find from a family that has the sickle cell gene. Lots if us have the trait. Here in the U.S where malaria isn't a huge issue if it at all, it's an annoyance. In a place with high malaria rates, it's a beneficial mutation.

 

[Ouroboros]

Meanwhile... I'm reading in a recent science magazine about how they're comparing modern human genes with Neanderthals and Denisovans by using epigenomes and methyl chemical tags to figure out what genes were switched on and off for the brain. Neanderthals and Denisovans had different brains than us, and used 3 times more calories (IIRC). And it seems like cognitive and mental disorders are connected somehow. Haven't finished the article yet, but it's funny that they're comparing DNA from different species of humans... which we are related to, which can be seen in the DNA, and then we're having discussions about if it happened or not. *facepalm*

 

[Ouroboros]

Shermana, your conclusion is that there is not enough time.

I put Shermana on ignore, so I don't know how he/she concluded that there's not enough time. The Demski report doesn't say that, it only argues that there wasn't "plenty" of time.

"Not plenty of time" ≠ "Not enough time"

I can have enough time to go to the dentist, even if I don't have plenty of time.

It's strange that this issue is still a problem. Unless, did Shermana give another link to some research showing that there's not enough time?

 

[Falvlun]

Here is my layman's list of why I don't think there's reason to doubt that there is enough time:

1. A beneficial trait (created by a mutation or otherwise) quickly disperses through a population.
2. Mutations do not occur linearly: A then B then C. A and B could be occurring at the same time, and C could have occurred generations ago and be ready to work with A and B.
3. All organisms within a population could contain mutations. So, a population need not be working only with one beneficial trait at a time. There could be many beneficial traits in the works at the same time.
4. When we isolate a population of organisms, or observe an isolated population of organisms, it is remarkable how quickly they become recognizably different from the parent population.
5. Evolution hasn't been overturned, even though it is the focus of thousands of studies by people who have made its study their careers. In other words, there's a lack of scientific evidence for the claim that "there isn't enough time".

 

[Falvlun]

I put Shermana on ignore, so I don't know how he/she concluded that there's not enough time. The Demski report doesn't say that, it only argues that there wasn't "plenty" of time.

I read your synopsis and analogy. It was helpful to me, so thanks!