The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

Some people can't comprehend millions or billions of years.

Or science. Or the details of biology that they bandy about recklessly.

I have seen an understanding of mutations, resistance and genetic bottlenecks completely butchered and screwed up in such fine Dunning/Kruger fashion today.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, this is the belief of biologists. But it is not supported and is not supportable. I believe it is additionally untrue.

Why do you think biologists believe it?
It is supported. It's one of the best supported theories in all of science. How do you not know this?
Why do you believe it's untrue? What flaws in the evidence or observations have you found?

 

[cladking]

Why do you think biologists believe it?
It is supported. It's one of the best supported theories in all of science. How do you not know this?
Why do you believe it's untrue? What flaws in the evidence or observations have you found?

All good questions but I've already addressed all of them in this thread. Essentially the biggest problem is that all change in all life is always observed to be sudden. If there were experiment or evidence to support a gradual change then that would be another story but no such evidence exists. You can't present the fossil record as proof of a gradual change. There are simply assumptions that the missing links haven't been found and that consciousness is irrelevant to whether something lives or dies. There is an assumption that one rabbit is representative of all rabbits. There is an assumption that inductive reasoning can be used to understand the evidence.

Change in species obviously exists but the cause is based strictly on a set of assumptions that fly in the face of observation. Change in species is sudden and Darwin's assumption that populations are relatively stable is where we were led astray.

 

[blü 2]

All good questions but I've already addressed all of them in this thread. Essentially the biggest problem is that all change in all life is always observed to be sudden. If there were experiment or evidence to support a gradual change then that would be another story but no such evidence exists. You can't present the fossil record as proof of a gradual change. There are simply assumptions that the missing links haven't been found and that consciousness is irrelevant to whether something lives or dies. There is an assumption that one rabbit is representative of all rabbits. There is an assumption that inductive reasoning can be used to understand the evidence.

Change in species obviously exists but the cause is based strictly on a set of assumptions that fly in the face of observation. Change in species is sudden and Darwin's assumption that populations are relatively stable is where we were led astray.

I assume you're familiar with that aspect of evolution known as punctuated equilibrium?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I assume you're familiar with that aspect of evolution known as punctuated equilibrium?

It may be best not to assume too much here.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So a mutation doesn't happen in one organism and then get passed on to the next? Populations are made up of organisms, one has to change in order for the next one to change and so on.

Please refrain from strawmanning me.

A mutation alone is not "evolution" for the same reason a drop of water is not a river. Evolution is the name we give to the phenomenon of allele frequencies changing over time in a POPULATION. It's what occurs when lots of mutations are selected for and begin to have an impact on the overall genetic makeup of a population.

 

[Valjean]

All good questions but I've already addressed all of them in this thread. Essentially the biggest problem is that all change in all life is always observed to be sudden. If there were experiment or evidence to support a gradual change then that would be another story but no such evidence exists.

But this is just.... well...Wrong! Completely wrong. Where in Earth did you get this demonstrably incorrect idea?

Change in species obviously exists but the cause is based strictly on a set of assumptions that fly in the face of observation. Change in species is sudden and Darwin's assumption that populations are relatively stable is where we were led astray.

What are these assumptions?
"Sudden?" Sudden's a relative term. Some species appear unchanged for billions of years, others change within days.
How sudden is "sudden?"

 

[Shadow Wolf]

it is rather pointless in calculating the odds of an event that already happened. Take any list of lottery winners. The odds of those people winning in that order ahead of time was astronomical. The odds after the event were one.

That does really depend. Sometimes crunching and calculating the odds after an event can help to understand the whys of an event or to make a better decision next time the same or a similar situation is present.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are absolutely correct. It is possible to observe evolution within a genus. It is not surprising, nor against Genesis, that a frog can evolve into another kind of frog.

What has not been observed, and what Genesis denies, is a frog evolving into a dog or whatever. A frog is a frog is a frog.

Evolution includes myriads of change that no one sees until it's seen.

 

[Audie]

Show me a animal that's currently developing from a cold blooded creature into a warm blooded creature. Or vice versa.

Nobody knows what anything is developing into.
Crystal balls don't work.
However, there are fish that are partially
warm blooded.

 

[Audie]

You would think that considering that they believe (pretend?) they are experts in subjects they haven't the first clue about. It cracks me up to see someone talking about mutations when it is clear they don't know the first thing about them.

Probably figure they are as smart and educated
as anyone else is, but as believers they have the edge

 

[tas8831]

Gooblygook.
Change in an organism does not equal evolution from one kind of creature to another with totally different body functions.

You should stick to plagiarism - at least that way, we can blame your bogus arguments and dopey assertions on others.

 

[tas8831]

Essentially the biggest problem is that all change in all life is always observed to be sudden.

But that is just some nonsense you made up to pretend to be smart.
You have never provided any kind of experimental or even observational support your crude and nonsensical claims.
Heck - you even got kicked off of a coin collector site for your constant self-aggrandizing lies.

 

[tas8831]

But this is just.... well...Wrong! Completely wrong. Where in Earth did you get this demonstrably incorrect idea?

His head, wherein demons dwell.

What are these assumptions?
"Sudden?" Sudden's a relative term. Some species appear unchanged for billions of years, others change within days.
How sudden is "sudden?"

You will never get a reasonable response.

 

[tas8831]

I assume you're familiar with that aspect of evolution known as punctuated equilibrium?

He is familiar with his fantasies, and not much else.

 

[tas8831]

So a mutation doesn't happen in one organism and then get passed on to the next? Populations are made up of organisms, one has to change in order for the next one to change and so on.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
Please try to understand that which you usually plagiarize about.

 

[cladking]

But this is just.... well...Wrong! Completely wrong. Where in Earth did you get this demonstrably incorrect idea?

Great!! All you need do is demonstrate I'm wrong then.

What are these assumptions?

I listed some of the assumptions INCLUDING IN THE VERY SENTENCE YOU QUOTED!!!

It's difficult to argue with the faithful. They see what they believe and are blind to everything else.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Really? Where does that leave you?

With a mystery regardless.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Some people can't comprehend millions or billions of years.

Because time is magic!

 

[Wildswanderer]

Nobody knows what anything is developing into.
Crystal balls don't work.

If it requires a crystal ball it's not science... and if it can't predict what the transition will be, why would I assume there was going to be one?