Irony of the evolutionary belief

[leroy]

If you don’t understand this word then why are you challenging science?

Why are you asserting anything at all?

Challenge science? What is that suppose to mean ? Science is not a "thing" ....


I what you to define evidence just for future reference....... that way you will not claim "no that is not evidence " if I am ever challenged by you in the future

 

[YoursTrue]

Until Evolutionists can show hard physical evidence for the intermediate steps between the human brain and the link for consciousness developing over millions upon millions of years, and if neuroscientists were actually able to make a link between the brain and the consciousness experience itself in the first place which they are not even close to doing, then this argument is not even worth a discussion. Those are two prodigious hurdles to overcome for evolutionists, nonetheless.

Macro-evolution relies on a belief system whether it acknowledges this or not much like religion. It's always the assumption "everything must have evolved somehow" in the evolutionist's world view but It's just that they fail almost always with presenting their case. Micro-evolution is not a discussion because adaptation is not really an extraordinary process that we can't possibly observe unlike a species transitioning into a completely different species altogether. But adaptation to certain environmental factors is very pretty among lots of species. It's as if species were designed to naturally adapt to different environments and is more of a case for the unique natural process of creation.

I remember reading from two physicists that the probability of the evolution of the human genome occurring was so improbable that the sun would first cease to exist as a main sequence star and obliterate the earth before the probability could even begin! And they were trying to prove the contrary. Also, the probability was with two exponents. The first negative and the second positive: (a^-x)^y to (b^-x)^y. Macro-evolution is impossible.

~ barrow and tipler anthropic cosmological principle

After having been here for a while and have gotten used to the "arguments" put forth by those here who staunchly believe in the theory of evolution, I am convinced more than ever those who support the theory especially here do not know what they're talking about conceptually. And cannot and therefore will not explain their beliefs for the most part except to put down those who do not believe in the theory. The insults of many of the staunch evolution theorists will likely continue to not provide particular distinct evidence supporting the theory even if they say there is, and show fossils such as "Tiktaalik," which is simply not evidence supporting the theory. It's evidence that something like that existed. But it's not evidence of evolution. (the theory of)

 

[YoursTrue]

Challenge science? What is that suppose to mean ? Science is not a "thing" ....


I what you to define evidence just for future reference....... that way you will not claim "no that is not evidence " if I am ever challenged by you in the future

I'd like to see that, too.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yessssssss “evidence” is part the large list of words that you have not been willing to dfine in the past.



A clear and useful definition would be great for future discussions

That is true. It would be great to see a definition. (I doubt, however, you will get one.) But, where there's life, there is hope. maybe.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is too much justification for the standards in this forum………… next time all you have to do is say “you are wrong because I say so”

lol, yes, that's true. Justification just isn't the word I would use, but you're right. It's more like prevarication for the most part. But, that's the world we live in. (now)

 

[leroy]

Until Evolutionists can show hard physical evidence for the intermediate steps between the human brain and the link for consciousness developing over millions upon millions of years, and if neuroscientists were actually able to make a link between the brain and the consciousness experience itself in the first place which they are not even close to doing, then this argument is not even worth a discussion. Those are two prodigious hurdles to overcome for evolutionists, nonetheless.

Macro-evolution relies on a belief system whether it acknowledges this or not much like religion. It's always the assumption "everything must have evolved somehow" in the evolutionist's world view but It's just that they fail almost always with presenting their case. Micro-evolution is not a discussion because adaptation is not really an extraordinary process that we can't possibly observe unlike a species transitioning into a completely different species altogether. But adaptation to certain environmental factors is very pretty among lots of species. It's as if species were designed to naturally adapt to different environments and is more of a case for the unique natural process of creation.

I remember reading from two physicists that the probability of the evolution of the human genome occurring was so improbable that the sun would first cease to exist as a main sequence star and obliterate the earth before the probability could even begin! And they were trying to prove the contrary. Also, the probability was with two exponents. The first negative and the second positive: (a^-x)^y to (b^-x)^y. Macro-evolution is impossible.

~ barrow and tipler anthropic cosmological principle

I'LL say that the issue is that evolution by definition is a mechanisms that aims at survival of the organisms (only things that are good for survival would be selected)

And Things like high consciousness or even complex brains dont seem to have a survival value and therefore not expectedtoevolve... in fact ¿why did we even evolved beyond microbes?

But I wouldn't go as far as to say therefore evolution is wrong..... "I dont know " is a valid answer

 

[Audie]

The evidence is overwhelming. The absurdity is why so many fervent believers don't understand the science, and believe Genesis has the answer.

But so far, no evidence for any God, or a created universe.

"No evidence is the best evidence"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What came first

1 the ability to digest food

Or

2 or the instinct / reaction of looking for food?

Why would you think either came "first"?

One would be useless without theother……….so both would have to evolve at the same time in order to get a selectable benefit

What makes you think one can exist without the other?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yessssssss “evidence” is part the large list of words that you have not been willing to dfine in the past.



A clear and useful definition would be great for future discussions

Evidence is data that matches (or contradicts) predictions / expectations of falsifiable hypothesis.
Good, reliable evidence is objective and independently verifiable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

After having been here for a while and have gotten used to the "arguments" put forth by those here who staunchly believe in the theory of evolution, I am convinced more than ever those who support the theory especially here do not know what they're talking about conceptually.

Says the person who, after being correct ad nauseum, still says ignorant things like "...but they remain gorillas!!!".
You are the last person to accuse anyone of not understanding evolution "conceptually".

And cannot and therefore will not explain their beliefs for the most part except to put down those who do not believe in the theory. The insults of many of the staunch evolution theorists will likely continue to not provide particular distinct evidence supporting the theory

The problem is that unless you actually let go of this strawman version of evolution you have in your head (as evidence by ignorant statements like the one mentioned above), you wouldn't even know and understand what is and is not evidence for evolution.

In fact, remarks like "...but they remain gorillas!", as if that is somehow an argument AGAINST evolution, says it all.
In reality, if gorillas would change into non-gorillas, evolution would be falsified.
You imply that because "gorillas remain gorillas", that that somehow is evidence against evolution.
In reality, it is evidence FOR evolution.

When you insist on such strawmen and doubling down on such willful ignorance, then you are not capable nor qualified to evaluate evidence for OR against this theory.
You need to understand what the theory ACTUALLY says before you can understand what is and is not evidence for it.

even if they say there is, and show fossils such as "Tiktaalik," which is simply not evidence supporting the theory.

See? To say that Tiktaalik (a fossil found BY PREDICTION) is not evidence in support of evolution theory, is further evidence that you don't know what you are talking about.

If evolution theory is wrong, then it makes no sense that this "fish-apod" was found by prediction. It in fact doesn't even make sense that this fossil in fact even exists at all, let alone that it was found BY PREDICTION.

It's evidence that something like that existed. But it's not evidence of evolution. (the theory of)

See? Sheer willful ignorance.

BEFORE anyone knew anything about this species, researchers predicted:
- its age
- its habitat
- its anatomy

And they did these predictions based on the evolution of sealife to land life.
They predicted its age based on estimates of when the transition from sea to land took place.
They predicted its habitat based on what that transition would have had to look like
They predicted its anatomy based on what we know today about fish and tetrapods and how the various anatomical parts evolved.

If evolution didn't happen, then there is absolutely NO REASON AT ALL why it would allow scientists to make such accurate predictions.

But hey.... keep sticking your head in the sand. Keep doubling down on strawmen. Keep pretending as if there is no evidence. Keep pretending as if the evidence FOR the theory is supposedly evidence against it.

You might be able to impress clueless creationists. But to educated people, you are just making yourself look rather foolish.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And Things like high consciousness or even complex brains dont seem to have a survival value

Ow really?

Having the intellectual capacity to fabricate tools to facilitate hunting, doesn't have survival value?
Having the intellectual capacity to use fire, doesn't have survival value?
To create the wheel? To engage in agriculture? To organize groups into settlements?

No? None of these things have survival value?

 

[leroy]

Why would you think either came "first"?

Nothing, it is obvious that both appeared simultaneously

What makes you think one can exist without the other?

Digesting food is useless if you don’t have the instinct of eating , this instinct is useless if you can´t digest food

 

[leroy]

Evidence is data that matches (or contradicts) predictions / expectations of falsifiable hypothesis.
Good, reliable evidence is objective and independently verifiable.

Ok, so just to get clear

Eye witnesses of people having seen the Long ness monster, is evidence for the existence of the Long Ness monster (by that definition)

 

[leroy]

Ow really?

Having the intellectual capacity to fabricate tools to facilitate hunting, doesn't have survival value?
Having the intellectual capacity to use fire, doesn't have survival value?
To create the wheel? To engage in agriculture? To organize groups into settlements?

No? None of these things have survival value?

Straw man, my point is that our mental abilities are far more extraordinary than needed for survival.

For example why do we even wonder about the existence of God, or Alians, or the origin of the universe?......... this is far more complex than “creating fire” and adds not survival value

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nothing, it is obvious that both appeared simultaneously

So you were just trolling with that question?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok, so just to get clear

Eye witnesses of people having seen the Long ness monster, is evidence for the existence of the Long Ness monster (by that definition)

By that definition, it is primarily bad and unreliable evidence since it is neither objective nor verifiable.

Also, it's not exactly data either. "eyewitness testimony" isn't really data. It's claims.
It's also not really clear to me how "loch ness monster exists!" is a falsifiable hypothesis.


All of that put together, no, I wouldn't exactly say that some person claiming that (s)he has seen X, to be "evidence" of X.
I'ld call it evidence of that person believing to have seen X. Not that that person has actually seen X.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Straw man, my point is that our mental abilities are far more extraordinary than needed for survival.

How is that a strawman?
You LITERALLY stated that you don't see survival benefit in "complex brains" (which directly relates to intellect and mental capacity).
Since "complex brains" (= intellect and mental capacity) directly accomodates tool building, tech innovation, social organization etc, it very much provides a survival benefit to our species.

For example why do we even wonder about the existence of God, or Alians, or the origin of the universe?......... this is far more complex than “creating fire” and adds not survival value

First, you're moving the goalposts (as usual...)

Second...
Many times, traits piggy back on other traits that are selected for.

Contemplating existence and / or the unknown is an obvious side effect of increased intellectual capacity which plays into imagination and alike to innovate.
Next to that, we also have the whole "prone to superstition" thingy as type 2 cognition errors (the false positive) very much has survival benefit and which we see in almost all animals that are seen as lunch to predators.

 

[Audie]

So you were just trolling with that question?

Ya think?

 

[SkepticThinker]

After having been here for a while and have gotten used to the "arguments" put forth by those here who staunchly believe in the theory of evolution, I am convinced more than ever those who support the theory especially here do not know what they're talking about conceptually. And cannot and therefore will not explain their beliefs for the most part except to put down those who do not believe in the theory. The insults of many of the staunch evolution theorists will likely continue to not provide particular distinct evidence supporting the theory even if they say there is, and show fossils such as "Tiktaalik," which is simply not evidence supporting the theory. It's evidence that something like that existed. But it's not evidence of evolution. (the theory of)

Show us you actually understand evolution, and then we won't have to keep pointing out that you don't understand evolution.
Until then, we're going to keep pointing out your misunderstandings.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'd like to see that, too.

Both of you have been given the definition of "evidence" more times than I can count at this point.