Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Subduction Zone]

Don't be so surprised by this. If you apply your own words to yourself, you will easily understand.

People do not want to be brainwashed, but to be shown real evidence of what others say. The speculations presented in evolutionist articles are not evidence that the evolution of species has ever been real at any time in the history of the universe, neither on the planet nor anywhere else in the cosmos.

You are of course very wrong. You do not even know what is and what is not "real evidence" you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence and why. Just because you do not like facts does not make them false.

The concept of scientific evidence is that that hard to understand. But unfortunately for you it does put the burden of proof upon the denier. So how can you refutes evidence when you do not even understand the concept?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Agree so if the descendents of humans evolve in to something that we would call a fish this new specie would be part of the fish paraphyletic group, there is nothing in the definition of paraphyletic group that prevents this.

This new specie and tuna fish for example would:

1 share a common ancestor

2 some but not all their descendants would be fish

And the definition is that it includes "some but not all of its descendant lineages".

yes and the site simply expalines what I did............fish is not a clade.......and you know it, You just what to disagree for the sake of disagreeing

I didn't say it was a clade.

 

[leroy]

n, evolutionarily, if your ancestors were fish by whatever phylogeny, you and your descendants would be fish.

Again no because fish is not a monophyletic clade ......you have been told multiple times I even provided a source ...... Why is this so hard to understand ?


By your logic " if your ancestors where unicelular organisms then you and all your descendents are unicelular "


Honestly can't you see your mistake? @TagliatelliMonster please help me and explain to this man why is he wrong

 

[leroy]

Yes they evolve differences, but we don't classify ourselves as tetrapod like, we are tetrapods as are whales even though they only have two pods left and 5 year olds think they are fish. In terms of biology, they are fish-like, but they are still tetrapods. @leroy is the one who thinks you can evolve into a group without common evolutionary history. Maybe a better example with less linguistic ambiguity would be bats evolving into birds, (they might become bird like but not birds) even though they do share some ancestry at some point (tetrapods) but having diverged, they will never share the ancestry of birds as a group.

That is because birds and mammals are monophyletic clades...... Fish is not a monophyletic clade........that is the difference that you keep missing


By definition one can't jump from one monophyletic clade to an other (birds can't evolve in to mammals)....... But that definition doesn't apply to paraphilic groups .... Id it really that hard

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It seems a losing battle given what is demonstrated here.

As I've suggested, I think that depends what your purpose is in holding these discussions. If your purpose is to educate the creationist you have responded to, then I agree that you will fail. If you find nothing else of value to you or any others reading your words in those discussions, then the exercise is pointless.

But that's not my experience. Even knowing that I will almost certainly never get through, I enjoy writing post like this one. I enjoyed writing those words to you.

There are some for whom I cannot fathom their motivation.

Agreed, and that's even more interesting to me than what they believe. Faith-based thought is no longer in my repertoire, although I have experience with that from my religious past, so I understand the willingness to engage in that, and in the case of many, that there is no other way to acquire ideas more lofty than the best place to get an Italian meal nearby or which musician one likes best, which are examples of empirically acquired knowledge, except to just accept them uncritically.

These are the people who voted for Trump thinking that he might have answers or help them despite all of the evidence to the contrary because they were told that and believed it uncritically. Anybody who still thinks that that kind of uncritical, faith-based thinking isn't dangerous and potentially very damaging only need look at what is coming, as other faith-based thinkers deploy their anti-scientific agendas (watch what RFK Jr does to health care, or the Republicans to climate change mitigation). Look at what the church has done to American women based in this kind of thinking.

How those clearly uniformed come to post as if they are the only truly informed is very perplexing

Agreed. I'm sure that you're familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect. We can imagine three levels of cognitive competence.

[1] Expertise - one is a well-trained critical thinker with a large fund of knowledge in a specialty area. He's usually correct and he knows he is in his field of expertise, like maybe an attorney or an engineer.

[2] Aware of expertise - one doesn't possess that specialized knowledge himself, but is aware that others can and often do, especially if certified by some reliable source as in having a professional license or degree.

[3] The Dunning-Kruger set - one is unaware that that expertise exists. He is unaware of what critical thinking is or does for the critical thinker. His opinions are all received uncritically. It is the only way he can acquire new ideas above the level of good Italian restaurants. These are the only kinds of things he learns using evidence he evaluates directly and correctly himself and uses to arrive at sound conclusions independently. It's the limit of his critical thinking skills, and he doesn't recognize them as such as he has no real concept of the process. And so he thinks that everybody else's beliefs are also ideas accepted uncritically. meaning that no opinion is more valuable than any other to him. And so, the opinions of a Fauci, for example, with degrees, board certifications in infectious diseases, immunology, and epidemiology, and decades of experience as well as a proven track record and professional accolades, has no more weight to him than a crackpot like RFK Jr's. One can recognize such people when they say regarding Fauci "That's just his opinion."

it is not an issue of me being blind). I insist on you quoting (copy paste) your alleged answer just to avoid further excuses like “no that was not my answer” or “you are taking my comments out of context” is my answer clear? am i missing something?

Yes, you are missing something, but I don't know how to impart my ideas to you if I haven't yet. I've already addressed that with you here when you brought it up a few posts back. I don't see the value to either of us for me to repeat that. If you care to review that link, begin with, "Second, your words don't make sense and aren't credible."

You've still failed to address my point, which is why you are uninterested in whether there is any merit to the criticisms a few of us have leveled at your posting behavior. You wrote, "I am not uninterested, but rather very interested, that Is why I keep asking people to quote their alleged answer," but that only makes my point that you are uninterested in discussing these criticisms and keep returning to comments like the one above, which discusses a non-problem.

You don't need words repeated if you have seen them before. You can quote them and/or link to them. They are etched in stone in some server for the foreseeable future. You're representing here that you need to have somebody like me repeat them when what you write is that you've never seen them and want evidence that they were written as the other poster claims.

Well that has a very easy solution

Quote (copy paste) the question and the answer, if you do tha in future conversations you will

1 show that you were correct and that you did answer in the past

2 I would no longer have an excuse and I will have to deal with your answer

Sounds like a good deal to me……………so why wouldn’t you do it?

I have done it for you, repeatedly and to no avail. Look at what's happening here again. Once again, I am redirecting you to words already written with the RF link above, but it will undoubtedly be to no avail as has been the case in the past. We are back into that loop for as long as I agree to continue participating where you fail to acknowledge words written to you then need them repeated over and again, lather, rinse, repeat ad infinitum.

Look at your words, as if you've just had a brainstorm that will resolve this issue - just repost my previous words to prove that they were ever posted, with the implication that you will then be forced to address those words. That doesn't happen. As I said, if I allow it, we will do this over and over and over and over again. Over and over, you will say to just show you what I wrote. Eventually, I will refuse. I'm already half-way there with this round. You'll notice that I didn't actually quote any of those words this time. I just linked to them.

Evolutionists theorize about what they believe might have occurred, but it's something they have never witnessed or even experimented in laboratories.

Evolution is something YOU'VE never witnessed. I have as have millions of other informed people. I've watched E.coli evolve metabolically in time-lapse photography. Somebody reproduced the link recently in this or a similar thread. Consistent with my words to Leroy above, I don't find any value in searching for it again and linking to it here. If you didn't look at it then, you won't look at it now.

Also, you can submit a query to AI if you ever become interested in learning the answers to your questions. I did so just now. I asked, "Has evolution ever been witnessed in a laboratory?" The answer began, "Yes, evolution has been witnessed and documented in laboratory settings through various experimental studies. One of the most notable examples is the work conducted by Richard Lenski and his team on *Escherichia coli* (E. coli) bacteria"

People do not want to be brainwashed, but to be shown real evidence of what others say

Most people can't evaluate scientific arguments themselves, and most of those are unaware that many others can. See Dunning-Kruger above.

You're a creationist. Your beliefs are faith-based, not evidence based. If evidence mattered to you, you'd have watched the E. coli video, or you would already have queried AI, but we both know that's not going to happen.

But apparently almost nobody wants to say that reason and evidence aren't involved in their thinking - just faith - so, they represent an interest that they don't have in those things as you have here. But one should go by the actions of others and not their words to decide how they process information.

 

[cladking]

But one should go by the actions of others and not their words to decide how they process information.

In almost every case you must deduce their premises from their words because people act on all of their beliefs not just a single one. This is why you can have a touchy feely politician cry crocodile tears over the plight of homosexuals and then vote for legislation that hurts everybody in fly over country or in Pennsylvania etc.

We are highly complex creatures who are infinitely malleable and can come to believe anything at all or support any cause including murder and gulags. We are not like any other species which all act on their knowledge and not on feeling; touchy feely or otherwise. But this isn't about politics, this is about Evolution and I don't see challenges being met. I see a lot of appeal to authority and citation of doctrine.

 

[cladking]

You do not even know what is and what is not "real evidence"...

Real evidence is always whatever supports what you believe so in science "real evidence" is whatever supports the prevailing paradigm.

Curiously enough every single time a fox catches a rabbit and every single time the rabbit gets away is support of "survival of the fittest" but that all observed change in life is sudden is irrelevant to the nature of life and how it changes.

Wow!!!

How many times have I said no science is based on evidence and all known science is based on experiment? How can believers in science not see this? If they could see it they'd know nothing in science can be proven and people can believe anything at all without experiment.

 

[cladking]

The emergence of writing in a given area is usually followed by several centuries of fragmentary inscriptions. Historians mark the "historicity" of a culture by the presence of coherent texts written by the culture.[33] Scholars have disagreed concerning when prehistory becomes history and when proto-writing became true writing

The Pyramid Texts are actually quite complete and are of sufficient size to solve in terms of itself. The problem is all ancient writing is fragmentary because of age and because it was studied extensively by later people who were trying to understand what linguists believe was their own language. It was not but linguists in every single case try to decode older writing in terms of later writing. Using this method generates gobbledty gook and the writing is pronounced incantation. It's like finding a fossilized rabbit in the jaws of a fossilized fox and pronouncing them both unfit. It is nonsense. There is no history anywhere because Ancient Language couldn't be translated in 2000 BC and it can't be translated today. Using horrendous methodology is the cause of both the belief in Evolution and the belief we are the evolved crown of creation because ancient people were each stumble footed bumpkins.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Pyramid Texts are actually quite complete and are of sufficient size to solve in terms of itself. The problem is all ancient writing is fragmentary because of age and because it was studied extensively by later people who were trying to understand what linguists believe was their own language. It was not but linguists in every single case try to decode older writing in terms of later writing. Using this method generates gobbledty gook and the writing is pronounced incantation. It's like finding a fossilized rabbit in the jaws of a fossilized fox and pronouncing them both unfit. It is nonsense. There is no history anywhere because Ancient Language couldn't be translated in 2000 BC and it can't be translated today. Using horrendous methodology is the cause of both the belief in Evolution and the belief we are the evolved crown of creation because ancient people were each stumble footed bumpkins.

Failure to respond is the best you can do with your bizarre selective use of history. bogus reference to the collapsed pyramid and your reject of science in favor of a personal metaphysical religious agenda,

 

[shunyadragon]

Real evidence is always whatever supports what you believe so in science "real evidence" is whatever supports the prevailing paradigm.

Curiously enough every single time a fox catches a rabbit and every single time the rabbit gets away is support of "survival of the fittest" but that all observed change in life is sudden is irrelevant to the nature of life and how it changes.

Wow!!!

How many times have I said no science is based on evidence and all known science is based on experiment? How can believers in science not see this? If they could see it they'd know nothing in science can be proven and people can believe anything at all without experiment.

Wow!!! Your stoic insistence of the rejection of science continues unabated.

 

[cladking]

There's no mechanism through which a species can change so drastically that it becomes something entirely different from its original ancestor. This is the observable, verifiable truth, and no evidence has shown otherwise. Evolutionists theorize about what they believe might have occurred, but it's something they have never witnessed or even experimented in laboratories.

We not only don't see missing links but we don't see many changes that could lead to the sorts of massive differences that are suggested by biologists. I believe these changes can occur given enough time and enough bottlenecks because all those "unused genes" are like a memory of almost every ancestor and given the proper conditions and needs they will reassert themselves. "Conditions" usually mean severe population loss but I'd hardly be surprised if mutation and consciousness both might not play a hand.

We're going to find nothing is random and this is going to apply to change in species in spades.

 

[cladking]

Failure to respond is the best you can do with your bizarre selective use of history. bogus reference to the collapsed pyramid and your reject of science in favor of a personal metaphysical religious agenda,

Does this mean you defend both science without experiment and linguists assuming the conclusion?

 

[cladking]

Expertise - one is a well-trained critical thinker with a large fund of knowledge in a specialty area. He's usually correct and he knows he is in his field of expertise, like maybe an attorney or an engineer.

You do realize that court cases are prima facie evidence that no two lawyers agree?

And if you lined up every accountant in America they still wouldn't reach a conclusion?

I hear tell the first thing taught in medical school is that when a patient dies leaving your office you turn them around and say they were coming in.

Your world sure looks a lot different than mine.

 

[cladking]

Even the Catholic church has changed so much you could say every religion is heretical. They're all splitters.

Has there been any change in science in the last 500 years?

 

[cladking]

Your world sure looks a lot different than mine.

Ever notice how most patients walk into a hospital and come out in wheelchairs?

 

[wellwisher]

If you look at the rise of human civilization, this is when human consciousness supersedes genetics. Much of this rise was about innovation and learning in unprecedented ways, compared to their natural instincts. This change was a function of the brain and consciousness. Humans have will and choice, can make man made selections; dog breeds.

The current theory of evolution, still down plays consciousness, since it is not within the reach of their genetic premises. The rise of civilization is based on the rise of modern human consciousness, appearing suddenly, allowing civilization to sustain. This change had to do with the rise of the human ego; secondary center of consciousness, beyond the primary animal consciousness; inner self. The ego has will and choice beyond pure natural selection. In modern times, you can be born with male DNA and choose to be female. The DNA is not doing that. It has to do with consciousness and will ignoring the DNA. Consciousness can alter innate species behavior; adaptation.

The central role of DNA is way over stressed, when it comes to empirical biology and evolution. Sure the DNA is a template that codes for the proteins of life. However, packing the protein and positioning them in the corrects spots, to be useful is beyond the power of the DNA. This adds extra. Once mRNA leaves the DNA, other processes take over, which in the case of consciousness, is based on how the brain organizes the raw materials from the DNA, into a brain that can store external inputs. The DNA is like the hard drive that has the data, but processing the data is done, separately. The analogy is we have fossil data, but that alone is of no use, until it is massaged, to make it into a correlation. Data by itself, without massage, is just stockpiled clutter.

So the question becomes, what is the processor of life that the DNA hands off to? We never see pure DNA making a cell from scratch. It requires all the protein in a mother cell, to work her DNA, to make new cells. The DNA is like all the materials at the construction site needed to make a house. But the materials do not self assemble. Rather they are processed, via the cellular protein. The protein process the DNA pile of materials into its own image. The protein team, is more than the sum of its genetic parts. It has the extra muscle that the DNA lacks. It more than just the data. It is the data come alive.

This is also how the brain and consciousness work, with that team more than the sum of its parts. The brain and sensory systems add data to the brain, that is not innate to the DNA; natural learning potential. When this outside data is combined with data from the DNA, we end up with something more than both; the framing and the finish carpentry. This extra; team effect, has an impact on the evolution of the DNA. Evolution, as is, is too empirical and not rational enough to do the math to see the DNA is not the top of the food chain.

This higher state than DNA is easier to see when you add water; copartner with the organics of life. A new protein is folded and packed by an outside force connected to water. Water is independent of the DNA, and it processes the raw materials, where DNA's role, stops. Water imparts extra to the protein grid; catalytic potential, that is beyond just the raw DNA data.

This extra processing is also important to the brain. It forms equilibrium structures; memory, based on internal and external data, beyond just the DNA; instinct applied to new situations. There is more going on internally, than just the DNA, with the genetic centric approach naive and sophomoric. There are at least two steps higher; water and consciousness.

 

[Pogo]

You do realize that court cases are prima facie evidence that no two lawyers agree?

False, Lawyers are specifically trained to be advocates for their clients position whether or not they agree with it, just as you were assigned positions in debate whether you agreed with them or not.

And if you lined up every accountant in America they still wouldn't reach a conclusion?

I hear tell the first thing taught in medical school is that when a patient dies leaving your office you turn them around and say they were coming in.

Your world sure looks a lot different than mine.

On this we will agree, our world does look very different to yours.

 

[Pogo]

Ever notice how most patients walk into a hospital and come out in wheelchairs?

Yup, this one you actually can blame on lawyers arguing points they don't agree with but liability suits are profitable and people are too often greedy, so if you are given any sort of general anesthetic, you stay in a wheelchair till you are released to another party. You can't even drive yourself home without being released to another responsible party.

Nice meme, but not for the reasons you wish to believe.

 

[leroy]

Yes, you are missing something, but I don't know how to impart my ideas to you if I haven't yet.

Well I answered based on what i understood. If you think I am missing something and you are not willing to explain it, then what are you expecting me to do?

It seems to me that you are asking “how come I am blind to the answers and not considering that maybe the problem is “me” being unable to understand
..................But see the difference between you (plural) and I ……………….I am not trying to “win” the debate by simply saying “I already answered” and declare victory-.---------- but rather I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, assume that I am the one who understood the question wrong and I am showing willingness to answer again with that new clarification..............

And I answered according to that understanding of the question………………..If I misunderstood the question, then you won’t get an answer unless you ask in a proper and less ambiguous way…...................you are the who asked the question you are the one who is supposed to be interested in the answer, removing the ambiguity of the question should interest you

Look at your words, as if you've just had a brainstorm that will resolve this issue - just repost my previous words to prove that they were ever posted, with the implication that you will then be forced to address those words. That doesn't happen. As I said, if I allow it, we will do this over and over and over and over again. Over and over, you will say to just show you what I wrote. Eventually, I will refuse. I'm already half-way there with this round. You'll notice that I didn't actually quote any of those words this time. I just linked to them.

That is a perfect illustration of the issues that we are having.

Instead of being direct and to the point and explain what is it that I have to answer (given that apparently I misunderstood your question the first time)………you are quoting to a vague and ambiguous post where you obvioslu didn’t make your point clear.

So my options are

1 ask you to clarify and explain what is it that I missed from your question, in a clear direct and unambiguous way

2 try to “guess” once again what you are trying to say, and take the risk of you responding “no that was not the question over and over again” ..... This will lead to a “tails you win” “heads I loose” situation, because given that you are the judge no matter what I do, you will always say that I failed to understand the question … (even if I didn’t)

I´ll simply pick option 1............

btw

Why do you keep avoiding my request?.........why won’t you quote @cladking question and your answer?

Do you understand that at least from my point of view, your unwillingness to answer strongly suggests that Cladiking is correct and that you didn’t really answer?


If we translate this to our typical conversation, I have the feelign that

1 you (plural) will ignore the request 2 or 3 times more

2 I will ask you one more time

3 you will respond with “ I already answered to your request”

4 I will ask “where” care to quote your answer?

5 you will respond with oh no scroll back and look for the answer or find some excuse for not quoting the supposed answer

 

[cladking]

False, Lawyers are specifically trained to be advocates for their clients position whether or not they agree with it, just as you were assigned positions in debate whether you agreed with them or not.

Yup, this one you actually can blame on lawyers arguing points they don't agree

We have met the enemy and he is us.