Evolution My ToE

[ecco]

That would not include unsubstansiated rumors and baseless beliefs about what forces on earth and laws were like long before science existed. I kid you not.

All you need to do is show that it was different. In other words, all you need to do is show your fantasy idea has any merit.

If you are correct and can provide the evidence needed to show it to be true, you will be awarded a Nobel Prize.


While you're at it you can probably also show what caused Australia to move at incredible speeds from where it was 4000 years ago to where it is now. Nobel #2!

 

[ecco]

Proven and time tested and observed by witnesses, and confirmed as true by Jesus, as well as billions of people who tested it in and for themselves!

Silly.



ETA: And ignorant of facts.

 

[nPeace]

@Jose Fly I am going to conclude that you are not able to explain how natural selection can act apart from the equivalent to a magic wand.

Remember, you are the one who told me to focus on the basics of your scenario, yet you seem to be stalling. It appears to me you are buying time in order to work out how you can show national selection acting apart from it occurring.

For the record, I was told by you... indirectly, not to make any objections (See here, and your response below it), So I don't think my saying we are good, would be accurate. Not that it would matter much, because I can simply say I follow you, in that I understand what you are saying, but I don't see what difference that would make to your story.

I really would like you to, but if you don't want to continue, that is okay. I think I understand the problem.
Some use natural selection like a magic wand, but it is not.

There also exists the problem of "living fossils", which they try to make disappear by waving the wand, or complaining, but "living fossils" apparently are not going anywhere.
The Falsity of Living Fossils
New studies of tadpole shrimp and other organisms show that the term “living fossil” is inaccurate and misleading.
Let's make living fossils extinct
Is it time for scientists to retire the term? It’s meaningless, incorrect and gets in the way of understanding

Rethinking Living Fossils
Biologists would be mistaken if they relegated living fossils to paleontological inquiry or assumed that the concept is dead. It is now used to describe entities ranging from viruses to higher taxa, despite recent warnings of misleading inferences
Living Fossils Really Do Live — and Pose Problems for Evolution
Creationist attack alert!

Should really listen to the podcast, but...

 

[Jose Fly]

@Jose Fly I am going to conclude that you are not able to explain how natural selection can act apart from the equivalent to a magic wand.

I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion, since that's exactly what I've been doing.

Remember, you are the one who told me to focus on the basics of your scenario, yet you seem to be stalling. It appears to me you are buying time in order to work out how you can show national selection acting apart from it occurring.

Not at all. I'm trying to be careful and thorough, to ensure that you understand what I'm trying to explain. I can assure you I have no interest in stalling or anything like that at all.

So with that said, I would like to continue (trust me, we're very close to being finished).

For the record, I was told by you... indirectly, not to make any objections (See here, and your response below it), So I don't think my saying we are good, would be inaccurate. Not that it would matter much, because I can simply say I follow you, in that I understand what you are saying, but I don't see what difference that would make to your story.

I really would like you to, but if you don't want to continue, that is okay. I think I understand the problem.
Some use natural selection like a magic wand, but it is not.

Let's continue where we left off. As for the new topic (living fossils) that you just introduced, we can get to that once we've finished with our discussion of natural selection. So.....

Let's add a little more detail to the scenario. Before the wolves showed up, the population of deer was made up of 60% individuals with parasite immunity, 20% with slight immunity, and 20% with no immunity (they are fully susceptible to the parasite). But once the wolves started preying on the deer and tending to kill the ones that had been weakened by the parasite, the composition of the deer population shifted to 80% individuals with parasite immunity, 15% with slight immunity, and 5% with no immunity.

Good?

 

[nPeace]

I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion, since that's exactly what I've been doing.


Not at all. I'm trying to be careful and thorough, to ensure that you understand what I'm trying to explain. I can assure you I have no interest in stalling or anything like that at all.

So with that said, I would like to continue (trust me, we're very close to being finished).


Let's continue where we left off. As for the new topic (living fossils) that you just introduced, we can get to that once we've finished with our discussion of natural selection. So.....

Let's add a little more detail to the scenario. Before the wolves showed up, the population of deer was made up of 60% individuals with parasite immunity, 20% with slight immunity, and 20% with no immunity (they are fully susceptible to the parasite). But once the wolves started preying on the deer and tending to kill the ones that had been weakened by the parasite, the composition of the deer population shifted to 80% individuals with parasite immunity, 15% with slight immunity, and 5% with no immunity.

Good?

You are not listening to me, are you? Or perhaps you don't consider what I say to be of any importance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are not listening to me, are you? Or perhaps you don't consider what I say to be of any importance.

I think the problem is the other way around. All you have been doing is making excuses rather than trying to learn and using your typical Gish Gallop responses where you get everything wrong.

 

[viole]

First of all viole, you have not shown me anything that says science overwhelmingly agrees that life started on earth only once... well, other than your posts.

Secondly, I don't know if you did read my post, but it has a link to information that specifically says... LUCA is not thought to be the first life on Earth but only one of many early organisms, all the others becoming extinct.
Here is another :- Life may have emerged not once, but many times on Earth
I could find a few more if you like.

Thirdly, I don't know of science being a hypothetical. It is a body of knowledge, but there are certain methodologies that must be applied before we can say "science says" anything.
So, no. Science does not overwhelmingly say what is hypothesized.

Fourth. Why are you speaking of what evolutionary biologists have distanced themselves from, since Uncle Charles Darwin died?
In that case, I am not sure you can exclude what Darwin himself did not. So where did life come from, if you know?
If you don't know, then why do you rule out special creation?
Do you accept that it is because it is presumed that there must have been a single common ancestor of all living organisms? Why? Because of a scientific consensus? Why?

I hope you are not serious. Can y

First of all viole, you have not shown me anything that says science overwhelmingly agrees that life started on earth only once... well, other than your posts.

Secondly, I don't know if you did read my post, but it has a link to information that specifically says... LUCA is not thought to be the first life on Earth but only one of many early organisms, all the others becoming extinct.
Here is another :- Life may have emerged not once, but many times on Earth
I could find a few more if you like.

Thirdly, I don't know of science being a hypothetical. It is a body of knowledge, but there are certain methodologies that must be applied before we can say "science says" anything.
So, no. Science does not overwhelmingly say what is hypothesized.

Fourth. Why are you speaking of what evolutionary biologists have distanced themselves from, since Uncle Charles Darwin died?
In that case, I am not sure you can exclude what Darwin himself did not. So where did life come from, if you know?
If you don't know, then why do you rule out special creation?
Do you accept that it is because it is presumed that there must have been a single common ancestor of all living organisms? Why? Because of a scientific consensus? Why?

I hope you are joking. The article you mentioned about life being started several times clearly says that all, but our branch, died out. So, even it the claim was right, you will still have a common ancestor with rats and carrots.

Where life comes from? I do not know. But I know that we all come from that one origin.

I mean, that is not such a problem. Do I know where the Universe comes from? Nope, but I can say we all come from that one origin,

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jose Fly]

You are not listening to me, are you? Or perhaps you don't consider what I say to be of any importance.

I'm doing my very best to try and address whatever questions or concerns you have.

Like I said earlier, we're extremely close to wrapping up this discussion of natural selection. So can we proceed? If not, then if you could explain what you're having trouble with I would appreciate it.

 

[nPeace]

I'm doing my very best to try and address whatever questions or concerns you have.

Like I said earlier, we're extremely close to wrapping up this discussion of natural selection. So can we proceed? If not, then if you could explain what you're having trouble with I would appreciate it.

Are you having difficulty understanding me?

 

[nPeace]

I hope you are not serious. Can y


I hope you are joking. The article you mentioned about life being started several times clearly says that all, but our branch, died out. So, even it the claim was right, you will still have a common ancestor with rats and carrots.

Where life comes from? I do not know. But I know that we all come from that one origin.

I mean, that is not such a problem. Do I know where the Universe comes from? Nope, but I can say we all come from that one origin,

Ciao

- viole

But you did say life started once, so that clearly was not a true statement.
I do believe we all came from one origin, but it was not LUCA. However, please tell me how you know that we all come from that one origin.

 

[Jose Fly]

Are you having difficulty understanding me?

I guess I am. Can you help me understand?

 

[dad]

All you need to do is show that it was different.

No. I don't. I can leave it with we don not know. Without knowing what nature was like, all models based on nature being the same are invalid. Period.

 

[dad]

Silly.



ETA: And ignorant of facts.

Don't really need your confirmation or denial or opinion of God or Scripture. Thanks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. I don't. I can leave it with we don not know. Without knowing what nature was like, all models based on nature being the same are invalid. Period.

Because all of the evidence supports that, period. You made a claim that is borderline crazy. You need to be able to support it for others to take you seriously. That your personal interpretation of the Bible is wrong if your rather inane claim is wrong is not a valid reason to accept it.

 

[viole]

But you did say life started once, so that clearly was not a true statement.
I do believe we all came from one origin, but it was not LUCA. However, please tell me how you know that we all come from that one origin.

How? You remind me of that guy asking me hot to prove the Pythagorean theorem.

To that guy I advice to study basic math. To you, to study basic biology and come back to me when you have an education about the subject.

Ciao

- viole

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure...we are all ignoring so called evidence you can't post. Not hard to ignore when it doesn't exist.

And within the second response, you're already denying it was every posted.

Excellent.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, if you thought reality for the future and past was based solely on the present, you got your keys conflated and confused.

The only reason you can post that nonsense is because millions upon millions of observations and tested predictions in the past made your device possible in the present.
Every time you turn that thing on, you assume the present is the same as the past, because it's the science (millions upon millions of data points, observations, tests, experiments, predictions, ...) of the past that is tested every single time you turn that thing on to come on here and deny it all.

The technology in that device assumes that the physics of the past operate in the present. You assuming you can reply to this post tomorrow with another idiotic remark, is you assuming that physics tomorrow will work like it works today, otherwise that device won't work. Nothing would work.

 

[ecco]

Or perhaps you don't consider what I say to be of any importance.

Uh huh.

 

[ecco]

No. I don't. I can leave it with we don not know. Without knowing what nature was like, all models based on nature being the same are invalid. Period.

Your comments and beliefs are far-out for even a religious fundamentalist creationist.

• Continents zipped across the oceans. How could that have happened? It doesn't matter - what matters is that it proves science is wrong.
• The whole world was flooded 4000 years ago. Why is there no evidence that it happened? It doesn't matter - what matters is that it proves science is wrong.
• Time and the speed of light changed from back then til now. Why is there no evidence that it happened? Why is there no explanation for how it could have happened? It doesn't matter - what matters is that it proves science is wrong.

Dad against the world. His ideas are not accepted by even most Christians (he calls them not-real-Christians). Does anyone on these forums agree with him? If they do let them come forward and defend Australia zipping across the Pacific. Until then, it's just Dad. All alone in a self-made fantasy world.

 

[ecco]

Don't really need your confirmation or denial or opinion of God or Scripture. Thanks.

It has been pointed out that you deny much of scripture. You're welcome.