Just Accidental?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How can you teach something as scientific truth when you have no more real evidence than believers in ID have?

If you stripped away all of the evidence that supports evolution including the physical evidence, the evidence that 150 years without falsifying a falsifiable hypothesis adds, and the evidence that the successful application of an idea to daily life in a way that improves it adds - throw all of that out and the explanatory mechanism, and you would still have an idea that could compete equally with ID. They would both be ideas supported by nothing but faith.

I see design, complexity and beauty all around me. Design involves planning and planning involves intelligence.

A faith based confirmation bias allows one to see what only that which is already believed by faith. You begin with the assumption that there is an intelligent designer, and that is all that you can see. Everything that you think can be used to support that presupposition is emphasized, and all the evidence that you are wrong filtered out.

This is why the ID people keep seeing irreducible complexity in biological systems that are then later shown not to be irreducibly complexity. It's always the faith based thinker seeing something that isn't there because he assumes it is. This kind of thinking is antithetical to science and critical thought in general. If you don't go from all of the available and relevant evidence to conclusion using valid rules of inference (reason), you don't generate useful ideas about the world. You just generate unsupported beliefs that are subsequently used to sift through evidence. Use the opposite belief, and you keep the ideas you presently reject and reject those you presently emphasize.

This accounts for why somebody would take the fact that sunsets occur and are seen as beautiful to point to a god. The same sunset does not lead to that conclusion when reason is applied to the evidence. Reason (Occam's Razor)informs us to not add unnecessary complexity too our hypothesis. If we don't need a god to explain sunsets, we are not justified in invoking one.

Incidentally, your arguments from beauty and complexity are incredulity fallacies. You just don't see how such things are possible without a god, and therefore, they are impossible. That's a logical error. It remains possible that nature is natural.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Science cannot answer that question....ID does......beautifully.

ID's answer is useless. Goddidit has no explanatory value and cannot be used for anything. "It did it by itself" is just as useless if left at that. I'm sure that you would reject such an answer for its emptiness since you're always requiring evidence of others, so why offer one equally empty?

You will believe whatever you want to believe ArtieE......just as we all do.

No, that's what faith based thinkers believe - whatever they want to believe. The reason and evidence based thinker's conclusions are compelled by the proper application of reason to evidence. That is why the faith based thinker feels free to believe in a supernatural deity for which there is no evidence, whereas the reason and evidence based thinker does not.

You guys never answer my questions because I believe you can't.

That's one of your signature bad faith disputation techniques as I indicated to you on this thread yesterday, and you ignored it again. So, I'll repeat what I posted then:

How many times have I asked you with no answer forthcoming from you why we would throw away a scientific theory that unifies and accounts for mountains of data, included a mechanism, is falsifiable by virtue of predicting what kinds of things can and cannot be found in nature but has never been falsified, and has led to technological advances that have improved the human condition for an idea that can do none of that? You are silent because you have no answer.

How many times have you been asked what barrier would prevent lesser degrees of evolution that occur over shorter periods of time from accruing over much longer periods of time into much greater changes? Crickets.

How many times have you been asked to explain why you posit a god to account for a living cell that you find too complex to exist undesigned and uncreated when what you are doing is proposing an entity also undesigned and uncreated that would need to be orders of magnitude more complex than a cell to account for it? Sound of a pin dropping.

How many times have you been asked to define what a kind is so that we may know exactly what you are saying never happens - one kind evolving into another? Sound of distant rooster crowing.

Incidentally, these are all rhetorical questions now - statements in the form of a question that really expect no answer. In every case, the question is a statement : there is no reason to exchange a sterile idea for one that can be put to use, nothing prevents large scale evolution from occurring over geological time, and cells are more likely to exist undesigned and uncreated than gods.

 

[gnostic]

It doesn't alter the fact that the evidence they present, regardless of their field, and regardless of their experience, is an interpretation geared to support their pet theory. The believe that evolution happened and all evidence is then forced to fit that 'fact'.

That’s weird, because I can see that creationists do exactly that. They tried to force the evidences to fit in with their pet religious belief, their faith.

And when there are no ways to fit square shape into round holes, metaphor for to fit evidences with their belief, they either ignore the evidences (as you have done) or they make up lies and excuses to how the evidences don’t exist (again, as you have done).

When you have been asked to present your evidences that nature have been created by the Creator or designed by the Designer, you often show pictures that of animals, that have no context whatsoever that they are designed or created by such invisible and so-called all-powerful god.

And you are wrong.

The evidences could...

(A) ...either verify the theory
(B) ...or refute the theory.​

The 3rd probability (C) is when there are no evidences or it being untestable; that would also refute the theory, and could be labelled as “pseudoscience”.

But the problem is not the theory of evolution. The problem is not the evidences. No, the problem is you.

You not only misunderstand evolution, you misuse it with misinformation.

Not at all......there is a big difference between provable science and theoretical science.

Uh...”provable science” is theoretical science, Deeje.

Theoretical science is where scientists used only logic and mathematical statements (eg equations) to prove the explanation, hence, theoretical science use PROOF, not evidences.

The mathematical equations are their “proofs”. So in essence theoretical science relied on logical but highly abstract solutions.

Theoretical science that use proofs, are mainly in the fields of theoretical physics, for instances, String Theory, M-theory, the Multiverse model, the Oscillating model (also called the Big Bounce, where the universe go through a series of expansion (Big Bang) and contraction (Big Crunch)), etc.

If you referring to science, as in using “evidences”, to either verify the statement, or refute the statement, hence to test it, then this empirical science or experimental science.

To me, theoretical science, are like hypotheses, thus they are “proposed” theories, not scientific yet.

Empirical science or experimental science, involved finding verifiable evidences, repeated and rigorous testings (eg experiments), raw data - hence it required observation.

Here, observation mean being able to detect, to measure or to quantify the evidences, test results or data.

I think when you are saying “provable science”, you actually mean empirical or experimental science, where theories are falsifiable and testable.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'd think he's probably paid by the hour!

But by the analogy, as I said, the cable guy routed the cable past some neighbors first, the bundle serves several subscribers in one package rather than having to run a separate cable for each

that doesn't reflect what we'd expect from random chance to me!

Yeah, and he would make a fortune on the first guy ... not so much on the rest. Because it's a terrible design and would probably end up causing a lot of problems for the homeowner.
Good design would give us a giraffe with a laryngeal nerve that goes straight up and down without having to make any detours. Evolution gives us the "badly designed" laryngeal nerve that branches off in weird directions.

thank you!

But they are not my assessments really, the pattern just tends to be- that what was once considered 'bad design' turns out to be extremely elegant design we just didn't get

As a caveman's assessment of a smartphone might be; 'that's the worst spearhead design I ever saw!'

Ah, but they are all your subjective assessments. Look how you explain away bad design in the analogy.

Here's what you had said:

"Our assessments of 'bad design' in nature are notoriously unreliable and naive. Volcanoes, meteors, earthquakes used to be great examples of 'bad design' before we understood the vital roles they play in supporting life on Earth.

But there will always be things we don't yet understand, that we can point to as 'bad design' "

My sarcastic comment was aimed at your assertion that you know that everything is actually a good design, even the badly designed stuff, because hey, we just haven't yet figured out that the bad designs are actually good designs yet, like earthquakes and volcanoes! I'm sorry but this argument is terrible and allows you to just throw everything into the "designed" category, whether it actually appears designed or not, which is awfully convenient for you and affords you a nice shortcut to get to "god did it" without having to actually demonstrate anything.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Let's look at that link.......seeing as how you are shouting now.....

"The evolutionary changes required to build the giraffe's imposing structure and to equip it with the necessary modifications for its high-speed sprinting and powerful cardiovascular functions have remained a source of scientific mystery since the 1800s, when Charles Darwin first puzzled over the giraffe's evolutionary origins," said Cavener, a professor of biology and the Verne M. Willaman Dean of the Eberly College of Science at Penn State. The giraffe's heart, for example, must pump blood two meters straight up in order to provide an ample blood supply to its brain. This feat is possible because the giraffe's heart has evolved to have an unusually large left ventricle, and the species also has blood pressure that is twice as high as other mammals.

To identify genetic changes likely to be responsible for the giraffe's unique characteristics, including sprints that can reach 37 miles per hour (60 km/h), Cavener and Agaba compared the gene-coding sequences of the giraffe and the okapi to more than forty other mammals including the cow, sheep, goat, camel, and human. "Okapi's gene sequences are very similar to the giraffe's because the okapi and giraffe diverged from a common ancestor only 11-to-12 million years ago -- relatively recently on an evolution timescale," Cavener said. "In spite of this close evolutionary relationship, the okapi looks more like a zebra and it lacks the giraffe's imposing height and impressive cardiovascular capabilities. For these two reasons, Okapi's genome sequence provides a powerful screen that we have used to identify some of the giraffe's unique genetic changes."

The readers are free to read the rest......but just to concentrate on these opening statements.....

So, despite the giraffe's imposing size, (up to 15 feet tall) it can sprint at 37 MPH ! Imagine the size of the heart needed to pump blood to a brain over 6 feet away, and uphill......and add to that its capacity to maintain its blood pressure standing still, let alone during a 37 MPH sprint. Then it needs to lower its head to drink, whilst pumping water uphill to its stomach. What are the odds that evolution could engineer such a fete? The giraffe is clearly designed to maintain its vital body functions in order to accommodate its size and shape. Engineering doesn't just happen......engineering is design. This design is way too complex to have just designed itself. It should also be noted that giraffes do not lie down to give birth, so their young must survive a 6 foot fall to the ground, head first. Imagine giving birth to a baby with such incredibly long legs!

Here is a You Tube video to illustrate the point.

Now what about that gene sequencing? This admission stands out to me.....

"Okapi's gene sequences are very similar to the giraffe's because the okapi and giraffe diverged from a common ancestor only 11-to-12 million years ago -- relatively recently on an evolution timescale," Cavener said. "In spite of this close evolutionary relationship, the okapi looks more like a zebra and it lacks the giraffe's imposing height and impressive cardiovascular capabilities."

Now the average reader would not see in those words what we see....probably because they have learned to gloss over certain aspects of evolution like science does. The sentence stating that the gene sequence is "very similar" BECAUSE "okapi diverged from a common ancestor" is very misleading BECAUSE there is not one single shred of solid evidence that this is true. It is assumed to be true and therefore presented as fact. Being "very similar" means what? There are many creatures that appear to be similar but are unrelated.

"Common ancestors" are a figment of evolutionary imagination. You have to believe that evolution is true to even accept what they are saying about the very beginnings of their 'process'.

Then it is admitted that in spite of them being incredibly dissimilar in their appearance and capabilities, they are still virtual 'cousins' on the evolutionary tree. Who says?

I hope that people here are seeing the incredible gullibility that is being played on in these assumptions masquerading as facts. There are no facts backing up a single claim. Their "evidence" is not real.......it is a made up fairy story fed to gullible people who want God to disappear.

I hate to have to tell you this...but he isn't going anywhere.

I have to urge you, yet again, to read up on comparative genomics. It helps to know what you're actually talking about, when discussing a topic. The evidence is right there in the article, and yet you still can't see it because you don't seem to recognize evidence for what it is.
Comparative Genomics | Learn Science at Scitable

 

[SkepticThinker]

It doesn't alter the fact that the evidence they present, regardless of their field, and regardless of their experience, is an interpretation geared to support their pet theory. They believe that evolution happened and all evidence is then forced to fit that 'fact'. How many assumptions does it take to make a fact?

I have a question. How do you think paternity tests work? And do you think they're accurate?

If you guys had any proof at all for what you claim, it would have been presented by now. Nothing concrete is ever forthcoming. You guys never answer my questions because I believe you can't. They are logical and you have no come back.

Yeah, that's been done. Last time I checked, the one and only viable explanation for the diversity of life on Earth has been the theory of evolution, for well over a century now. It's hard to see when you clamp your eyes and ears closed though.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, that's the faith based method - beginning with what you hope is true and then sifting through the evidence to see which of it you might be able to use while rejecting the rest, trying to construct what appears to be an argument leading to a conclusion that is actually a faith based premise (pseudo-conclusion).

Science goes in the other direction. It starts with all the relevant evidence available and attempts to derive generalizations that account for it all. When it finds that those generalizations can now be used to make accurate predictions, the conclusions are deemed useful.



If you were capable of learning, you would have stopped thinking that scientific theories can be proven years ago.

What you have been given is evidence, which you invariable subject to the creationist two-step - demand evidence (calling it proof), don't even look at it let alone make a good faith effort to evaluate it critically and open-mindedly, then claim that there is no "proof" again.

It's my opinion that evidence should not be offered to faith based thinkers. They didn't arrive at their present position using it, and they can't be budged from it by evidence.



That's one of your signature bad faith disputation techniques.

How many times have I asked you with no answer forthcoming from you why we would throw away a scientific theory that unifies and accounts for mountains of data, included a mechanism, is falsifiable by virtue of predicting what kinds of things can and cannot be found in nature but has never been falsified, and has led to technological advances that have improved the human condition for an idea that can do none of that? You are silent because you have no answer.

How many times have you been asked what barrier would prevent lesser degrees of evolution that occur over shorter periods of time from accruing over much longer periods of time into much greater changes? Crickets.

How many times have you been asked to explain why you posit a god to account for a living cell that you find too complex to exist undesigned and uncreated when what you are doing is proposing an entity also undesigned and uncreated that would need to be orders of magnitude more complex than a cell to account for it? Sound of a pin dropping.

How many times have you been asked to define what a kind is so that we may know exactly what you are saying never happens - one kind evolving into another? Sound of distant rooster crowing.

Incidentally, these are all rhetorical questions now - statements in the form of a question that really expect no answer. In every case, the question is actually a statement : there is no reason to exchange a sterile idea for one that can be put to use, nothing prevents large scale evolution from occurring over geological time, and cells are more likely to exist undesigned and uncreated than gods.

This ^^^^. So. Much. This.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When you have been asked to present your evidences that nature have been created by the Creator or designed by the Designer, you often show pictures that of animals, that have no context whatsoever that they are designed or created by such invisible and so-called all-powerful god.

Deeje has already been told that to the reason and evidence based thinker, things like beautiful sunsets are not evidence either for or against an intelligent designer, evidence being that which helps us distinguish between competing hypotheses.

But that's not how she processes information. That's not how she decides what is true. She drinks from the other cup, faith.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is just the point metis.....you must accept their "reality" presented in terms that are not absolute but designed to make it all sound so feasible.......until you take it apart and concentrate on what they aren't saying as opposed to the agenda that they are pushing. Assumption is not fact. It is belief.



Evidence for this "change" from a strictly scientific viewpoint (demonstrated by experiment and duplication under strict conditions) cannot be produced in the case of macro-evolution. Adaptation IS demonstrable in the lab.....but there is nothing but "suggestion" to infer that it can transform one kind of creature into another over vast periods of time, which is what evolution "suggests" with no real evidence that it is even possible.

If it is a suggestion, then teach it as an unproven theory, not a fact. School children are indoctrinated with this theory long before they reach university. Ask any university student who has chosen to study science whether they have any doubts about its validity and you will get a general consensus that it is undeniable.....but then ask them to produce substantiated evidence and they are left scratching their heads trying to find some that does not rely on "belief", "faith" implication and inference.

How can you teach something as scientific truth when you have no more real evidence than believers in ID have?

I'm sorry, haven't you denigrated scientists for making up terms? So why is it okay for you to just use terms however you please? How many double standards do you intend on making in this thread?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Patterns in nature are not accidental. If something is designed, it exhibits purpose beyond being just nice to look at. We see this is the incredible beauty in nature. Why are sunsets and sunrises so beautiful? Do they have to be for the sun to rise and set as the earth rotates? Why is the sky blue, when space is black? Is there a reason why we see the sky as beautiful?

Clouds are also an awesome feature of creation, designed to lift water from the salty oceans and process and deposit it as fresh water to keep living land dwellers alive. Do clouds have to be beautiful?

What would sunsets be without clouds?

Now ask yourself what good all this beauty would be without the unique ability that humans have to appreciate it on many levels? When was the last time you saw an animal admiring the sunset? What inspires us to want to capture such images and share them with others who will also appreciate them?

What forces combine to produce these pictures? Are they just another magnificent fluke? You can believe that if you wish....to me that is to be blind to the obvious.

I see design, complexity and beauty all around me. Design involves planning and planning involves intelligence. Can you dispute that at any level? What object that you use that was designed for a purpose, had no designer and maker? When does common sense fly out the window to be replaced by something that makes no sense at all?

Who among humans would not stop to admire these scenes? They are breathtaking....but why? Science cannot answer that question....ID does......beautifully.

Prove it.

"I think the sky is pretty and therefore someone designed it just for me" is not a valid argument of any kind.


By the way, my 8 year old nephew knows why the sky is blue. And it' ain't because it's pretty!

 

[metis]

That is just the point metis.....you must accept their "reality" presented in terms that are not absolute but designed to make it all sound so feasible.......until you take it apart and concentrate on what they aren't saying as opposed to the agenda that they are pushing.

Since I have a graduate degree in this area, yes, I have studied this is quit some detail. And please also remember that I cam from an anti-evolution church and family, so it took a lot of evidence to eventually convince me that the basic ToE is indeed real.

Evidence for this "change" from a strictly scientific viewpoint (demonstrated by experiment and duplication under strict conditions) cannot be produced in the case of macro-evolution.

If we used your approach in criminal law, a great many people now in prison would be walking free to wreak havoc on others. "Forensics" involves taking the available information and "connecting the dots" to either get a conviction or to see that the person arrested is actually innocent. An example is using d.n.a. evidence in a rape case.

Again, you, nor anyone else here, has posted a single piece of evidence that "micro-" stops short of "macro-", and it's obvious that your viewpoint is not based on science but on an unreasonable interpretation of the Creation Accounts that even most Christian theologians think is absurd.

You demand evidence from us and yet you simply cannot substantiate in any way how your magical wall stops the evolutionary process, nor can you supply one shred of evidence that a single god actually exists. If this was a scored debate, yours would be a "0" as you simply cannot substantiate anything with any objective evidence whatsoever.

And the clincher is that you're not likely going to find a single geneticist that'll agree with you. If your position was even remotely logical, they should be more on your side of this-- but they ain't.

How can you teach something as scientific truth when you have no more real evidence than believers in ID have?

A false equivalency as there's a vast difference in the approaches of both science and religion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

All due respect back to you, but you keep going on about fractals as if they connect in some way to evolution. We are not talking about fractals here......we are not including mathematical design, which is as appealing as a kaleidoscope was to me when I was a kid. What are you trying to prove? That pretty things can exist without being designed? Can mathematics be explained without being designed? Aren't fractals based on mathematics?

"Pretty" is not at issue here.....its functionality....deliberate purpose to something that cannot be explained away as something "accidental". There is purpose to design which involves planning....you do understand this?

What has this got to do with anything? The "simple rules" are mathematical are they not? Did mathematics invent itself? Did the human brain just accidentally "get" math? Did Fibonacci numbers, evident in so many things in nature, just happen for no apparent reason? I'm sure that science thinks they did. Good 'ol Mr Nobody....what a clever fellow.....pity he will never be recognized for the genius that he is.......

No one said your patterns had to be planned. What purpose do they serve apart from their aesthetics? I am speaking about the reasons why humans appreciate beauty in nature in a completely different way to animals. Why are there flowers of every color?....what is color anyway? Why does it exist?.....why do birds sing songs that make us feel good?......why do scenes of waterfalls take our breath away? Why would we find the sight of falling water so attractive? What is water? How did it come to be?

What about the air we breathe? Was it just a fortunate accident too? Is it a co-incidence that trees breathe out what we breathe in and vice versa? If I keep going will I run out of fortunate coincidences....?
How many coincidences are too many to be believable?

Why do birds annoy us with their song when we seek quiet? Why isn't the sky red? What purpose does flesh eating bacteria serve? Why do some people like hot dogs? Why do children drown in swimming pools? Why do tornadoes destroy churches? Why do feet smell so bad? Why don't farts smell like apple pie? Why don't some people have any empathy? What is white, anyway? Why are centipedes so gross? Why do I think old books smell so good when my husband thinks they stink? Why do puppies eat our shoes?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not at all......there is a big difference between provable science and theoretical science. We appreciate true science that is supported by real evidence.....evidence that is demonstrable.....provable.....not evidence that is merely suggestions.....about what "might have" happened when no one was around to document anything. ....except the Creator of course.

Oh, please tell us all about how science works, Oh Wise Person Who Has Never Studied It.

 

[Jose Fly]

Can I ask you the same question? Your 'beliefs' play an equal role in you hanging onto your 'beliefs'

And what beliefs that dictate my views on evolutionary biology do you think I hold?

unsubstantiated with any real evidence and peppered with personal insults designed to make your opposition look inferior to your great science gods

Again, your posts speak for themselves.

So let's be clear here....

1) You are a Jehovah's Witness.
2) The Jehovah's Witnesses mandate that to be a member of their faith, one must believe in Biblical creation and reject evolutionary theory.
3) If a Jehovah's Witness deviated from that mandate and adopted any sort of pro-evolution stance, (according to your own words) that person's JW friends and family would "treat them like a piece of garbage" and that person would lose all meaning to their life.

Now, are you actually arguing that the above 3 items play no role at all in how you respond to the data people post to you? They play no role at all in the conclusions you reach on the subject?

I submit that they are the predominant factor in everything you think and say about this subject. Am I wrong?

 

[Jose Fly]

This critique you've provided on Wells' statement....how does this bolster macro evolution?

Sheesh.....move goalposts much?

Remember, the point of contention is my claim that Wells is a documented liar. I supported that claim by showing how the data clearly shows that peppered moths rest on tree trunks, despite Wells statements that they don't.

Do you have a rebuttal to that point?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I have no predetermined positions, only current positions.
Then you are little aware of anything.

There's nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence, but there is something wrong with belief in things for which there is NO EVIDENCE. You got your education from TV, I got mine from two of the best universities in the world. I wonder which of us would qualify in court as an expert in the biological sciences and evolution, don't you?
We do not have to, you might actually examine the evidence with an open mind ... nah.
'night.

'Got my education from TV', huh?

You've just can't help but slant the conversation with an ad hominem, can you? (Just like the majority of pro-CDers
on this board I've noticed.)

My education extends quite further than that.

Evolution within species occurs, even genera, but there's no conclusive evidence that organisms mutate into higher taxa, forming new body plans. Stating otherwise is not truthful. Like, "pakicetus is the ancestor of whales." What a doozy.

Once more: the Cambrian Explosion stands by itself as evidence for creation, several creative acts for that matter!

The sheer magnitude of functional information in the cell is evidence, also.

And on, and on.

Since you are a self-proclaimed expert on evolution, would you mind answering these questions?

1. Is the mutation rate volatile enough to enable the beneficial change required to form all the varied organisms that have ever lived? Or has it manifested stability enough to maintain form and consistency?
2. How significant must a change be, in order to impact on survival and thus, subject the organism to the influence of natural selection?
3. Are the required states “logically inconsistent” - that is, can there be a mutation rate that satisfies the mix of stability and volatility required for evolution by mutation?
4. Aren’t the vast, overwhelming majority of mutations, as an expression of the inexorable march of entropy, detrimental to survival and prone to inefficient formlessness, rather than efficient, purposeful form?
5. Can evolution by micro-mutations occur if the changes aren’t significant enough to be noticed by natural selection, bearing in mind the organism’s very real capacity to adapt to minor limitations?
6. How significant must a micro-mutation be before it swamps an organism’s motivation to adapt? And if a micro mutation is not significant enough, won't the equal likelihood of back-mutation annihilate any desirable, chance, positive increment?

 

[Jose Fly]

Evolution within species occurs, even genera, but there's no conclusive evidence that organisms mutate into higher taxa

And that again brings up the question I asked you and you subsequently ignored........@Deeje insists that speciation occurs and all changes within taxonomic families are just fine. Do you disagree?

 

[metis]

Once more: the Cambrian Explosion stands by itself as evidence for creation, several creative acts for that matter!

Not really as the span of time may seem short relative to how long it took to get to that point, but once single-celled organisms began to merge, all sorts of possibilities could evolve and in a relatively short period of time.

Aren’t the vast, overwhelming majority of mutations, as an expression of the inexorable march of entropy, detrimental to survival and prone to inefficient formlessness, rather than efficient, purposeful form?

Most mutations seemingly have no or little effect as the last estimate I heard is that the average person probably has about seven mutations within their own body.

Now, when we deal with sex cells, which is where evolution would have to be effected, then that's a different matter. Since my classwork on this goes all the way back to the 1970's, and since I'm not a geneticist, I can't give you any kind of update other than to say that I have not read a single study by a geneticist who doubts for one minute that there's been an evolutionary process, and I've been a subscriber to "Scientific American" for almost 50 years now.

I think the important thing, if we put this all into a larger perspective, is that all material objects appear to change over time, and genes are material objects. There has not been a single scientific study I've ever seen that indicates that evolution somehow magically stops after hitting some sort of mysterious wall.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Sheesh.....move goalposts much?

Remember, the point of contention is my claim that Wells is a documented liar. I supported that claim by showing how the data clearly shows that peppered moths rest on tree trunks, despite Wells statements that they don't.

Do you have a rebuttal to that point?

Did I not state that I do not approve of lying? You must've missed my point about fighting fire with fire, there have been many people who've lied to further evolutionary theory...Haeckel's drawings and Piltdown were among the first. So, if your opponent "fights dirty", what would that incline you to do? With lying, it just destroys credibility.

Although I've never known any moth species to not rest on trees, I don't know the validity of the study, either. You'd trust it, no doubt, but too many studies have been slanted to support MACROevolution. (That's the real issue.)

Like this disingenuous piece:

Pleiotropy: Watching multicellularity evolve before our eyes

It was not multicellularity, it was single cells forming a colony!
The comments section is telling!

So long. Hope you have a good day.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evolution within species occurs, even genera, but there's no conclusive evidence that organisms mutate into higher taxa, forming new body plans.

We don't need conclusive evidence that the evolution of taxa higher than genus occurs or to falsely claim that it exists to say that it is possible or likely that they does.

Do you have evidence to the contrary - that it doesn't or cannot? If not Darwin's theory remains viable and competitive in a race with a supernaturalistic hypothesis that explains nothing, is unsupported, makes no testable claims, and has generated nothing of use to date.

Stating otherwise is not truthful.

Stating that naturalistic evolution from a single ancestral life form cannot occur is untruthful. Do you make that claim?

the Cambrian Explosion stands by itself as evidence for creation, several creative acts for that matter!

Not to me. It stands as evidence that evolution had a rapid phase, possibly as a result of multicellular life arising and relatively rapidly filling the previously unoccupied niches.

The sheer magnitude of functional information in the cell is evidence, also.

DNA is evidence that DNA exists, evidence being that which helps distinguish between two or more competing hypotheses. DNA definitely refutes those that say that it doesn't exist, but it neither supports nor contradict those who say that it could not have originated naturalistically, that is, by blind, unguided processes.