More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

[YoursTrue]

The problem is that you do not understand the concept of evidence and refuse to even discuss it. What good would it do to give you any evidence when you will simply deny it?

By the way, if you understood the concept of evidence you would have to openly lie to deny the evidence. You appear to know this.

If there is evidence, please do explain what that evidence is. One or two samples will do, thanks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Meantime, you offer nothing other than your opinion. And naturally, that of others. NOT proof by science. But the opinions of others as if you understand why they agree with the Darwinian model. If you offer more than that, please put in your own words beyond opinion that makes you believe in evolution of the Darwinian kind. Thank you so much!

How many times do you have to be told that science is evidence based. You won't even learn what is and what is not evidence. How can you expect anyone to present any evidence to you. Let's give this a shot:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific method.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.

"Lucy" was discovered in 1974. She is strong evidence for human evolution. Now you may make false claims that she is not, but that is likely because you do not understand why she was such an important find:

Lucy (Australopithecus) - Wikipedia

There now you have been given evidence. Strong evidence. You need to do more than deny it. Lucy is evidence for the theory of evolution because it is exactly what we would expect to find if the theory was correct. It fits all of the categories for scientific evidence. Now you need to have a well justified refutation if you want to claim anything else. That means you need peer reviewed papers from real scientific journals.

And this is just one small piece of evidence. There are millions of pieces of evidence for the theory of evolution and no one can seem to find any evidence to the contrary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not lying because there IS no evidence. None what-so-ever. If there is, please put it in a few of your own words the "evidence" of Darwinian concept of evolution, thank you. By a few words, a brief explanation of the "scientific" kind of evidence proving evolution will do. Perhaps a paragraph or two in your own words. Thanks.

Yes, there is evidence. I just posted some. You are sadly too ignorant in this matter to be lying, but you are repeating falsehoods.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If there is evidence, please do explain what that evidence is. One or two samples will do, thanks.

I posted some. I also posted a definition of scientific evidence. Now the burden of proof is upon you.

You need to show how either the theory of evolution does not meet the standard of being falsifiable (and I can give one simple test to show that it is). So since you cannot do that you need to refute Lucy as evidence. Denial will not cut it any longer.

This is an honesty test for you. As a Christian you should try to pass it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Lyn margulus was one of the greatest evolutionary biologist who contributed much to the theory of evolution.
Lynn Margulis - Wikipedia
Her work actually shows how complex cells formed through natural endosymbiosis process. How does it support creationism or refutes evolution I have no ideam

She was considered to have been against what is termed "neo-Darwinism." Neo-Darwinism is said to describe integration of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection with Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics. So there is the subject of genetics and then there is the Darwinian theory of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, there is evidence. I just posted some. You are sadly too ignorant in this matter to be lying, but you are repeating falsehoods.

I have not read all the posts yet. Can you please give me the number of the post in which you posted some evidence, because I really can't read everything, although I'd like to. Thank you again. I'll wait for the post number before I go on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have not read all the posts yet. Can you please give me the number of the post in which you posted some evidence, because I really can't read everything, although I'd like to. Thank you again. I'll wait for the post number before I go on.

Post 602:

More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

You will find both the definition of evidence there and some evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

She was considered to have been against what is termed "neo-Darwinism." Neo-Darwinism is said to describe integration of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection with Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics. So there is the subject of genetics and then there is the Darwinian theory of evolution.

You need to read the articles a bit more and quit cherry picking. She did claim to be a "Darwinist" She accepted the fact of evolution. She disagreed on the driving force of it is all:

Although I greatly admire Darwin's contributions and agree with most of his theoretical analysis and I am a Darwinist, I am not a neo-Darwinist."[8] She argued that "Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create", and maintained that symbiosis was the major driver of evolutionary change.[12

 

[sayak83]

She was considered to have been against what is termed "neo-Darwinism." Neo-Darwinism is said to describe integration of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection with Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics. So there is the subject of genetics and then there is the Darwinian theory of evolution.

She proposed several more natural mechanisms for evolution apart from mutations. As evidence for several of them were found they were included as valid mechanisms of evolutionary change along with mutations. Since then several more mechanisms for evolutionary change has been discovered (horizontal gene transfer, epigenetic changes etc.) More mechanisms of evolutionary change will doubtless be found and incorporated into the theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

How many times do you have to be told that science is evidence based. You won't even learn what is and what is not evidence. How can you expect anyone to present any evidence to you. Let's give this a shot:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific method.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.

"Lucy" was discovered in 1974. She is strong evidence for human evolution. Now you may make false claims that she is not, but that is likely because you do not understand why she was such an important find:

Lucy (Australopithecus) - Wikipedia

There now you have been given evidence. Strong evidence. You need to do more than deny it. Lucy is evidence for the theory of evolution because it is exactly what we would expect to find if the theory was correct. It fits all of the categories for scientific evidence. Now you need to have a well justified refutation if you want to claim anything else. That means you need peer reviewed papers from real scientific journals.

And this is just one small piece of evidence. There are millions of pieces of evidence for the theory of evolution and no one can seem to find any evidence to the contrary.

You have not explained AT ALL how Lucy is strong evidence for human evolution. You only say it is. I surely hope that is not your evidence proving evolution. Because you are not really saying how and why Lucy is 'strong' evidence for human evolution, other than opinion. A few cohesive cogent sentences from you explaining how and why Lucy is strong evidence for -- evolution of the Darwinian model, thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

She proposed several more natural mechanisms for evolution apart from mutations. As evidence for several of them were found they were included as valid mechanisms of evolutionary change along with mutations. Since then several more mechanisms for evolutionary change has been discovered (horizontal gene transfer, epigenetic changes etc.) More mechanisms of evolutionary change will doubtless be found and incorporated into the theory.

There is no proof that these mutations lead to continued formation changes that caused new forms continuing and leaving the older forms. (Such as that proposed of the "Unknown Common Ancestor" of bonobos, gorillas, and humans. She was assailed by many, if not most, scientists because of her views which finally went against the Darwinian model of natural selection.

 

[YoursTrue]

You need to read the articles a bit more and quit cherry picking. She did claim to be a "Darwinist" She accepted the fact of evolution. She disagreed on the driving force of it is all:

Although I greatly admire Darwin's contributions and agree with most of his theoretical analysis and I am a Darwinist, I am not a neo-Darwinist."[8] She argued that "Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create", and maintained that symbiosis was the major driver of evolutionary change.[12

lol, ok, you say 'that's all' she disagreed with (the "driving force" of .. um.. evolution of the Darwinian thought, lol, that's all) Not saying she did not believe in evolution. She did not agree with Darwin's Theory of -- Natural Selection. I'm thinking she and I would have gotten along. Sounded like a smart lady.

 

[sayak83]

There is no proof that these mutations lead to continued formation changes that caused new forms continuing and leaving the older forms. (Such as that proposed of the "Unknown Common Ancestor" of bonobos, gorillas, and humans. She was assailed by many, if not most, scientists because of her views which finally went against the Darwinian model of natural selection.

No it did not go against the Darwinian model at all. All she did was to propose a new mechanism for certain kinds of evolutionary changes in addition to random mutations. They have been accepted long back and incorporated into evolutionary theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have not explained AT ALL how Lucy is strong evidence for human evolution. You only say it is. I surely hope that is not your evidence proving evolution. Because you are not really saying how and why Lucy is 'strong' evidence for human evolution, other than opinion. A few cohesive cogent sentences from you explaining how and why Lucy is strong evidence for -- evolution of the Darwinian model, thanks.

I did not have to. If you do not understand something that you really should know to be even debating this topic then that is your fault.

She is clearly what a creationist would call an "ape" yet she is much closer to humans than she is to chimpanzees. Her hips are rather key. As are her knees and other bones in her lower anatomy She clearly waked upright most of the time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

lol, ok, you say 'that's all' she disagreed with (the "driving force" of .. um.. evolution of the Darwinian thought, lol, that's all) Not saying she did not believe in evolution. She did not agree with Darwin's Theory of -- Natural Selection. I'm thinking she and I would have gotten along. Sounded like a smart lady.

So you accept the fact that you are an ape. Perhaps we are getting somewhere.

And yes, she thought that symbiosis was the driving force rather than mutations in genes. She is a well respected scientist but she is still thought to be wrong on that. At lest when the life is not bacterial.

 

[metis]

...have not explained AT ALL how Lucy is strong evidence for human evolution.

Because "Lucy" is what we would have expected to see as an example of a human not terribly far removed from the ape line. If she walked down the street and you saw her without knowing about her, you'd probably regard her as being an odd-looking ape-- except she's human.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Meantime, you offer nothing other than your opinion. And naturally, that of others. NOT proof by science. But the opinions of others as if you understand why they agree with the Darwinian model. If you offer more than that, please put in your own words beyond opinion that makes you believe in evolution of the Darwinian kind. Thank you so much!

No, no, we're not changing the subject yet.
So to be clear, you don't have any actual "holes in the theory" that you can actually name or list or anything?

I'm not interested in opinions, that would be where you are actually coming from. You place your opinions about the Bible above all else, apparently. I'm interested in evidence, which you are clearly not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

OK, so explain why you believe in evolution of the Darwinian model. You can say you have told me, but perhaps you can put it in your own words, briefly, that is, of course.

It is the prevailing scientific theory that best fits all the available evidence and best explains the diversity of life on earth.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have not read all the posts yet. Can you please give me the number of the post in which you posted some evidence, because I really can't read everything, although I'd like to. Thank you again. I'll wait for the post number before I go on.

The entire thread is overflowing in evidence. You should read some of it sometime.

 

[YoursTrue]

Because "Lucy" is what we would have expected to see as an example of a human not terribly far removed from the ape line. If she walked down the street and you saw her without knowing about her, you'd probably regard her as being an odd-looking ape-- except she's human.

This here representation of Lucy is insane. I.N.S.A.N.E.