Irony of the evolutionary belief

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your defense is lacking any credibility as it's dependent upon the old, subjective circular reasoning which is a baseless theory

So much fail in a single sentence....

1. there was no circular reasoning present in my post

2. circular reasoning is not a "theory". it's a logical fallacy


Having said that, I note you didn't even bother explaining to us all why you think Tiktaalik doesn't count as a transitional. Not surprised though.
Do you even know how it was found by prediction? I bet you don't.

In fact, I bet you don't even know what it is or why it is a remarkable fossil. I bet you have to go to your creationist sources to copy-paste some ignorant fallacious drivel to pretend to be able to argue against it. And I bet that if you do that, it will consist of mega-fallacious reasoning at best or conspiratory nonsense at worst.

Prove me wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you judge these men by their fashion sense and their love of bananas.

No. I judge them by the nonsense that they spew with their mouths.

Sounds like you don't know the significance of the banana in that picture and by extension you don't know how Comfort got his "banana man" nickname.

You should look it up.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm on the science ship. Maybe you missed my sarcasm.

Yes, all creationists like yourself are still on the Ark to this day looking for land. Just floating aimlessly.

Indeed, I got a good night's sleep. But I have been on the journey against creationist fraud since 1996.

I've learned that you'll be on the journey for a lot longer still. You know the expression, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." Same thing with learning. You can lead people to real information, but you can't make them read it or learn from it. They don't want to. They are not thirsty for knowledge -- they long for dogma and certainty of opinion (rather than fact). Mostly, for that reason, I stay well clear of these threads. It's too frustrating, and it saddens me to see people who will not learn.

I'm reminded of an old line by Dorothy Parker, when asked "can you use the word horticulture in a sentence?" Parker responded: "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think."

 

[We Never Know]

What makes you think there was a container? And why assume it came from anywhere?

Then you must think it was in nothing and came from nothing

If you think a creator caused energy then where did the creator come from? See, infinite regression doesn't answer anything. It's simpler to assume energy always existed.

I don't think that at all. I don't know why you always go to that argument as a defense

And there is no reason to think there wasn't some form of time that accounted for a change in state. For a creator to act there would also have to be time, so still, no better answer by assuming magic.

The current theory is time began with the universe.
There had to be time either way. And both had to exist in something.

Only because they adopted ancient religious lore, not due to facts

Which ancient religious lore?

What god?

Being its about creation, if a god existed, I would assume a god that creates

Right, so we make the simplest assumptions. Assuming gods only adds to the lack of knowledge.

Not knowing is a lack of knowledge, period.
Assuming a god doesn't add to lack of knowledge. Its adds an out, a way to think/believe it happened.

 

[wellwisher]

I can accept Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection, but the dice and cards approach to genetic change and evolution is conceptually flawed. Uncertainty and margin of error means the theory is not fully rational, but still has a religious black box faith angle, which explains the religious war. This is the only theory in science that constantly debates religion; religious war. There is no such line in the sand, war, with chemistry, physics or engineering. If anything engineers marvel at some of the ancient construction and its longevity all with hand tools.

Let me explain the source of the major conceptual flaw. It can be shown that there are aspects of the DNA that are very conservative and rarely mutate. There are other areas that are more prone to change. In the land of gambling casinos, this tells me the DNA dice are loaded. The problems is, how can you still use math connected to unloaded dice, to explain loaded dice? It is called cheating. This cheating may be unconscious, but is being over compensated as reflected in this religious war.

Conceptually, what the DNA is doing is reducing the negative uncertainty of purely random change, by making the possible change less destructive. If we randomly changed parts on any machine, there is more that can go wrong, then can go right. The machine will break, long before it becomes a better mousetrap. Let us put the radiator in the trunk, so it is easier to work on the motor.

What the DNA is essentially doing is like saying, you cannot move any of the parts connected to the motor and the drive train. You will be limited to cosmetic changes in the body style, and the inside cabin; colors, materials, textures, etc. There changes are more subjective, and less objectively destructive to the overall performance of the car. Whether we have a white interior and a red car, or a white car with a red interior, it is still very stylish and sporty. The most common evolutionary change is cosmetic; new leaf style but same photosynthesis.

The question becomes, how does the DNA know the difference, and how can it enforce this? You guys will need to modify statistical models to include loaded dice math, and stop dealing from the bottom of the deck.

I like a water model for life, since the structure and configuration of the DNA; Beta double helix is based on water and hydration; minimize the potential of the water. Water can also create an equilibrium effect ,that covers both genetic options; load the dice, as a function of the protein grid's water; water's summation potential. This allows for multicellular differentiation. You need new kidney cells to stay tight to specs, but still allow some subtle protein scaffolding changes.

 

[Pogo]

I've learned that you'll be on the journey for a lot longer still. You know the expression, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." Same thing with learning. You can lead people to real information, but you can't make them read it or learn from it. They don't want to. They are not thirsty for knowledge -- they long for dogma and certainty of opinion (rather than fact). Mostly, for that reason, I stay well clear of these threads. It's too frustrating, and it saddens me to see people who will not learn.

I'm reminded of an old line by Dorothy Parker, when asked "can you use the word horticulture in a sentence?" Parker responded: "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think."

Yay Dorothy, and you beat me to it.

 

[F1fan]

Then you must think it was in nothing and came from nothing

Lawrence Krause has a well known answer to this. Are you not familiar with it?

The current theory is time began with the universe.

That explains our current laws of physics that we all work with. What happened at the event of the Big Bang isn't known.

There had to be time either way. And both had to exist in something.

Maybe a large Folgers coffee can since we are guessing and assuming.

Which ancient religious lore?

The Genesis myth, which you are surely aware of, is massively rampant in the West and Middle East.. And the Hindu creation myth with Brahma as creator.

Being its about creation, if a god existed, I would assume a god that creates

Sure, assume it. It only causes more questions, and they can't be answered either. For example, what god?

Not knowing is a lack of knowledge, period.

Creationists lack valid knowledge of science as a deliberate act of ignorance. Not being able to answer a question, like what happened at the event Big Bang, is just the circumstance of not having the answer yet.

Assuming a god doesn't add to lack of knowledge.

Sure it does, because introducing an idea that doesn't correlate to anything in nature only creates more questions. What god? How does it exist? How does it function? How does it create? Where did the material come from if it didn't always exist? Etc. These are all questions that follow an assumption that has no evidence, so unnecessary.

Its adds an out, a way to think/believe it happened.

We aren't looking for outs, or excuses. We are looking for answers. To admit "we don't know" is honest and truthful.

 

[We Never Know]

Lawrence Krause has a well known answer to this. Are you not familiar with it?

I think I vaguely recall his nothing is empty space which answers/explains nothing.

That explains our current laws of physics that we all work with. What happened at the event of the Big Bang isn't known.

Exactly. It isn't known. Yet some claim it was this or that.

Maybe a large Folgers coffee can since we are guessing and assuming.

The Genesis myth, which you are surely aware of, is massively rampant in the West and Middle East.. And the Hindu creation myth with Brahma as creator.

Sure, assume it. It only causes more questions, and they can't be answered either. For example, what god?

There supposedly are many gods and much god lore

Creationists lack valid knowledge of science as a deliberate act of ignorance.

Opinion

Not being able to answer a question, like what happened at the event Big Bang, is just the circumstance of not having the answer yet.

The answers may never be known

Sure it does, because introducing an idea that doesn't correlate to anything in nature only creates more questions.

More questions for whom?

What god? How does it exist? How does it function? How does it create? Where does the material come from if it doesn't exist? Etc. These are all questions that follow an assumption that has no evidence, so unnecessary.

Already answered more than once. Stop repeating yourself.

We aren't looking for outs, or excuses. We are looking for answers.

Who's "we". Do you speak for everyone?

To admit "we don't know" is honest and truthful.

Exactly. To claim otherwise is foolish.
Does a god exist? I don't know.
Can you admit that?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I can accept Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection, but the dice and cards approach to genetic change and evolution is conceptually flawed. Uncertainty and margin of error means the theory is not fully rational, but still has a religious black box faith angle, which explains the religious war. This is the only theory in science that constantly debates religion; religious war. There is no such line in the sand, war, with chemistry, physics or engineering. If anything engineers marvel at some of the ancient construction and its longevity all with hand tools.

Let me explain the source of the major conceptual flaw. It can be shown that there are aspects of the DNA that are very conservative and rarely mutate. There are other areas that are more prone to change. In the land of gambling casinos, this tells me the DNA dice are loaded. The problems is, how can you still use math connected to unloaded dice, to explain loaded dice? It is called cheating. This cheating may be unconscious, but is being over compensated as reflected in this religious war.

Conceptually, what the DNA is doing is reducing the negative uncertainty of purely random change, by making the possible change less destructive. If we randomly changed parts on any machine, there is more that can go wrong, then can go right. The machine will break, long before it becomes a better mousetrap. Let us put the radiator in the trunk, so it is easier to work on the motor.

What the DNA is essentially doing is like saying, you cannot move any of the parts connected to the motor and the drive train. You will be limited to cosmetic changes in the body style, and the inside cabin; colors, materials, textures, etc. There changes are more subjective, and less objectively destructive to the overall performance of the car. Whether we have a white interior and a red car, or a white car with a red interior, it is still very stylish and sporty. The most common evolutionary change is cosmetic; new leaf style but same photosynthesis.

The question becomes, how does the DNA know the difference, and how can it enforce this? You guys will need to modify statistical models to include loaded dice math, and stop dealing from the bottom of the deck.

I like a water model for life, since the structure and configuration of the DNA; Beta double helix is based on water and hydration; minimize the potential of the water. Water can also create an equilibrium effect ,that covers both genetic options; load the dice, as a function of the protein grid's water; water's summation potential. This allows for multicellular differentiation. You need new kidney cells to stay tight to specs, but still allow some subtle protein scaffolding changes.

Nobody, certainly nobody in science, has ever compared genetic change and evolution to dice and cards.

Yes, genetic change occurs randomly through copy errors. But whether any such change survives (doesn't prove fatal and so can be passed on to future generations) or confers a competetive advantage in surviving, thriving and producing offspring is how nature "selects." Obviously, this is not some sort of conscious choice on nature's part -- merely such a change, in its very nature, produces more copies of itself than the unchanged allele inherited by siblings. This lop-sided rate of reproduction often results in simply swamping the unchanged allele out of existence.

Second, genetic change through copy errors can happen anywhere in copied DNA strands. But many of those copy errors prove detrimental or fatal in the offspring, meaning that such changes (not properly producing a critical protein, for example) are immediately lost. So it is not a matter of "conservative" or "rarely mutated" DNA strands, and to say that DNA "knows the difference" or "enforces" anything is nonsense. Such changes are simply not passed on because those changes prevent the organism from surviving to reproduce.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The experts exposed and debunked the science you believe in long ago. I can list you endless charges which have never been defended

Don't claim. Do. Bring up your best example and see how it goes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

nothing more than asking for evidence, to support the fake strawman

But you have already demonstrated that you do not understand what is and what is not evidence. You have also demonstrated that you do not understand logic or logical fallacies. It looks to everyone as if you are just a denier of reality.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I love your sense of humor, at least that's intact

I've been here six years now so I obviously might need a sense of humour rather than ranting away at all those who comment and who seem to me as being more like children than adults - but then I will forgive them for their delusions of course, being the goodly sort.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So much fail in a single sentence....

1. there was no circular reasoning present in my post

2. circular reasoning is not a "theory". it's a logical fallacy


Having said that, I note you didn't even bother explaining to us all why you think Tiktaalik doesn't count as a transitional. Not surprised though.
Do you even know how it was found by prediction? I bet you don't.

In fact, I bet you don't even know what it is or why it is a remarkable fossil. I bet you have to go to your creationist sources to copy-paste some ignorant fallacious drivel to pretend to be able to argue against it. And I bet that if you do that, it will consist of mega-fallacious reasoning at best or conspiratory nonsense at worst.

Prove me wrong.

Our interlocutor does not understand logical fallacies. He only knows the name of some. I have seen this before. They have seen debates shut down with claims of "strawman" or "circular reasoning" but they can never properly support their charges.

 

[SkepticThinker]

and yet that is exactly what we find when we search for images of human evolution...there are thousands of similar images. Whether or not you agree, that is the consensus that has been fed for decades about human evolution...its also still what we find in school textbooks on the subject of human evolution.

I repeat: The problem is that this picture is not an accurate depiction of how evolution actually works.

wow, thats a statement of ignorance...there's a ****load of evidence against it. What you should have said is that YOU dont believe the evidence against it!

There is no evidence against evolution that I'm aware of.

Creation.com and Answers in Genesis are two major entities that have produced enormous amounts of material that cast doubt on many aspects of evolutionary "THEORY"! (you know what a theory is right?)

Garbage, non-scientific sites with pre-determined beliefs.

To illustrate my point about theories...I have a theory that one day i might become a billionare (despite my not even being a millionare right now. However, im an ideas man and some of my ideas are theorectically, brilliant ones!). The point is, historically i have nothing to support the theory i might become a billionare and that leaves my theory in tatters.

^^ This does not describe what a scientific theory is.

This does:
" A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space. Similarly, the theory of evolution explains why so many plants and animals—some very similar and some very different—exist on Earth now and in the past, as revealed by the fossil record."

What Is a Theory? A Scientific Definition | AMNH

In everyday use, it may mean a hunch, or a guess. Scientists understand the term quite differently.

www.amnh.org

The dilemma for Christians is that historically, the Bible simply does not support naturalism theory as the basis for life...or old age earth for that matter.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The dilemma for Christians is that historically, the Bible simply does not support naturalism theory as the basis for life...or old age earth for that matter.

And what sciences were the writers of the Bible expert in?

 

[SkepticThinker]

All of that is based on circular reasoning and mainstream science is based on a baseless theory, where no evidence exists to support it. It just requires the victim to blindly swallow what they are fed.

I'm the kind of person who requires material evidence, I never embrace someone's private fantasy as fact.

Nobody ever recorded or produced a single shred of evidence to support the idea of evolution, it's just and desperate attempt to fill in the blanks on their paper, but it has nothing to do with actual proven fact.

Apparently you've never heard of genetics before. Or biology, Or the fossil record.
Time to get reading. Start with academic sites and scientific journals rather than Answers in Genesis who have built-in biases and present the evidence in a dishonest fashion.

 

[leroy]

You have to be joking. You are the one that misunderstands everyone else.

Ok, but just for the record, you don’t have a source that supports your claim, other than Carlos comments in a debate correct?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, but just for the record, you don’t have a source that supports your claim, other than Carlos comments in a debate correct?

Fix your behavior and then you can ask questions and expect an answer.

 

[gnostic]

I can accept Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection, but the dice and cards approach to genetic change and evolution is conceptually flawed. Uncertainty and margin of error means the theory is not fully rational, but still has a religious black box faith angle, which explains the religious war. This is the only theory in science that constantly debates religion; religious war. There is no such line in the sand, war, with chemistry, physics or engineering. If anything engineers marvel at some of the ancient construction and its longevity all with hand tools.

well, that‘s paragraph was a load of crap.

within the theory itself, there are no mentions of any religion or of any god, and there are not even allusions to any part of the scriptures.

What you seeing as debates, have nothing to do with the theory itself, because the theory of evolution is completely neutral with regards to religions - the debates are happening outside of the theory.

if you pick up any university biology textbooks, the focus are all on the organisms that showed diversity among populations, and they happened genetically. There are no “for or against” religions or religious beliefs (there are no sides), because those subjects are outside of the scopes of textbooks, because religion aren’t relevant in biology textbooks.

There are no attempts in this biology textbooks to refute or to disprove God or gods, because the existence of any deity isn’t relevant.

But it isn’t just biology. Physics, chemistry, earth sciences and astronomy, none of their respective textbooks teach anything about god or about religion, because they are also outside the scopes of the respective science textbooks.

sure, there are debates, but they are happening outside the studies in biology.

if you want to study religion at any university, then find classes in theology, or culture studies that include the history of religions and the roles they played in societies. If religion have any role in science at university, then it would be in Social Sciences, not in Natural Sciences.

The problems are with Natural Sciences, the problems are with some theists, particularly creationists, who think their religions and scriptures are essential in natural sciences, that they have to push their personal beliefs into studies and researches of sciences.

But you have read the Bible, particularly Genes 1 & 2. Does it EXPLAIN ANYTHING ABOUT LIFE, ABOUT THE BIOLOGY OF LIVING ORGANISMS.

As the real focus of Genesis creation were about creation of humans, so what explanation does Genesis have to explain Adam and Eve - like their anatomy, as in how they work? Can Genesis how the brains, or lungs, or hearts or their sex organs are structured and how they each functioned? What are muscles, organs or bones are made of?

Saying that Adam was magically created from dust, and not from reproduction and not from being born - that’s not explanation, Genesis 2:7 is a fairytale, a myth, a fiction. It has no value at all, add nothing to scientific knowledge.

Christian Creationism - whether it be OEC or YEC or Intelligent Design - they are just superstitions with no factual knowledge and no basis in reality - they are pretension, window-dressings for their religions.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I can accept Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection, but the dice and cards approach to genetic change and evolution is conceptually flawed. Uncertainty and margin of error means the theory is not fully rational, but still has a religious black box faith angle, which explains the religious war. This is the only theory in science that constantly debates religion; religious war. There is no such line in the sand, war, with chemistry, physics or engineering. If anything engineers marvel at some of the ancient construction and its longevity all with hand tools.

There was a religious struggle, but that struggle ended in western countries. It was only kept in so-called communist countries. Certain governments retained a claim to disprove God, but here in the west that all went away.

Let me explain the source of the major conceptual flaw. It can be shown that there are aspects of the DNA that are very conservative and rarely mutate. There are other areas that are more prone to change. In the land of gambling casinos, this tells me the DNA dice are loaded. The problems is, how can you still use math connected to unloaded dice, to explain loaded dice? It is called cheating. This cheating may be unconscious, but is being over compensated as reflected in this religious war.

I think its less a matter of maths and more a matter of where did all the genetic diversity come from. Where are the edges? What are the limits to adaptations? There don't seem to be any hard lines. For a long time people did not know what might cause such diversification, what might guide changes to accumulate. That changed when explorers began to find lots more kinds of animals such as the finches and the vast array of wild felines, the bears, all the other variant creatures. They began to notice that when populations are cut off from their group then they start to differentiate from that group. This they realized was the origin of species, but it could not merely be assumed. It had to be studied, and the study and cataloguing of new species proceeded.

The species are studied and their environments and any connections between them and other species. It is a lot of detailed work. I don't know how these people get paid. Probably they rely on grants or fund it themselves. Its probably fun sometimes if dangerous. I recall National Geographic would sponsor some of this work.

Conceptually, what the DNA is doing is reducing the negative uncertainty of purely random change, by making the possible change less destructive. If we randomly changed parts on any machine, there is more that can go wrong, then can go right. The machine will break, long before it becomes a better mousetrap. Let us put the radiator in the trunk, so it is easier to work on the motor.

What the DNA is essentially doing is like saying, you cannot move any of the parts connected to the motor and the drive train. You will be limited to cosmetic changes in the body style, and the inside cabin; colors, materials, textures, etc. There changes are more subjective, and less objectively destructive to the overall performance of the car. Whether we have a white interior and a red car, or a white car with a red interior, it is still very stylish and sporty. The most common evolutionary change is cosmetic; new leaf style but same photosynthesis.

The question becomes, how does the DNA know the difference, and how can it enforce this? You guys will need to modify statistical models to include loaded dice math, and stop dealing from the bottom of the deck.

I like a water model for life, since the structure and configuration of the DNA; Beta double helix is based on water and hydration; minimize the potential of the water. Water can also create an equilibrium effect ,that covers both genetic options; load the dice, as a function of the protein grid's water; water's summation potential. This allows for multicellular differentiation. You need new kidney cells to stay tight to specs, but still allow some subtle protein scaffolding changes.

DNA mutations are encouraged to last mainly through two things: the survivability of the life by itself and the survivability of the life with symbiotes. Unfavorable mutations are unlikely to remain around although they can; but they are more likely to harm the creature's survival. Stronger survival is all that's required for mutations to have a better chance of being repeated. The finches of the galapogos and the felines separated by barriers and various other groups that have become isolated (including humans on islands) demonstrate accumulations of changes.