The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[tas8831]

"People today can't even address the simple fact that all observed change in life is sudden so the assumption of gradual change in species as a result of survival of the fittest is sacrosanct."

"Change is exceedingly rapid dependent upon definitions. But is always fast and rarely does anything require more than a generation or two."

RARELY disproves ALL

 

[gnostic]

So neither of you are going to address a single point in any post that doesn't agree with scientism.

Until such time as ANYONE either addresses a single point OR creates a counter argument I am no responding further.

Good luck with your beliefs and assumptions.

Excuse me, but you created a thread called Ancient Reality, where you believe that the people BEFORE the Tower of Babel, which claimed to be 2000 BCE or before 4000 years ago, all spoke a single language that you called the Ancient Language, and between 4000 years ago and 40,000 years ago, they spoke this same Ancient Language, and you considered these people to be real scientists, who practiced the Ancient Science.

You also claimed that these prior to the Tower of Babel were Nephilim, while post-Babel these people were Homo omnisciensis.

Every single claims you have made at this thread were based on your personal beliefs, beliefs based on your assumptions and interpretations.

None of your beliefs and assumptions were tested. There are no evidence of this fantasy (Ancient Language and Ancient Science) of yours, there are only just assumptions.

And you to bring this fantasy from your thread to here.

And you have this same creationist mentality, where you believe in this conspiracy theory that scientific community believe in dogma and scientism.

But it isn’t scientism and it isn’t dogma.

Any alternative ideas, alternative models, hypotheses or theories must be supported by testable and verifiable evidence. They must be (A) falsifiable, must be (B) testable and tested, and all the models plus the evidence and data must be (C) examined by people who are within the same fields or related fields, to ensure there are no errors and no fraudulent data.

Since this thread is about Evolution.

Who are better to test and critically analyze new biological models than other biologists? You wouldn’t ask astrophysicists to review papers on biological concepts. You wouldn’t ask carpenters, electricians, jet pilots, political journalists, politicians, or theologists, to review any biological concept and data. Hence, the importance of Peer Review, and scientific community of other biologists?

This whole conspiracy fantasy of yours, is just you being disgruntled with no one taking your Ancient Language and Ancient Science concepts seriously, namely the Egyptologists. So you bring your fantasy in this forum.

Why? To convert people into pseudoscience concepts of yours?

And when we disagree with you, you called them pro-scientism.

How many people here have rejected your ideas?

They have rejected it, because you have never presented a single evidence to your concept and your assumptions, then you accuse them of being scientism whenever they disagree with you.

Seriously how does that help your concept or your argument?

 

[cladking]

Since this thread is about Evolution.

I am responding to this only because it is an attack and I have tactical reasons to respond and mention that you have so many statements of error and misrepresentation in your post I wouldn't address it even if you weren't on my ignore list. The only coherent thing in your post is quoted above.

It might surprise people to know that I've been developing my theory of change in species since I was a young boy and deduced most of it long before my work with the great pyramids. I don't really care much about the mechanisms for species change since we will never discover the relevant details for even one species change before 40,000 years ago (the memory of man). It really doesn't matter much what specific behavior drove a change but my interest in the subject was recharged when I found lines in Ancient Language that reinforce my "conclusions". Ancient people used their "Theory of Species Change" to create new animals and plants that could be grown (ie- agriculture).

It's the belief in "evolution" that drives the interpretation of experiment and observation. It simply doesn't matter to believers that their "theory" has no basis in experiment and observation is misinterpreted. It doesn't matter to them that their "theory" isn't really believable at all unless you start with notions of "survival of the fittest" and that we can understand why one individual dies and another lives without understanding consciousness. The "theory" is a mountain of induction and, unfortunately, all inductive reasoning is dependent on definitions and beliefs. The manipulation of taxonomic abstractions is an important human activity and has been for 4000 years but it is not something upon which science can be founded. It is beyond metaphysics no matter what Peer believes otherwise. This is a simple fact. Darwin induced evolution with the assumption populations remained relatively stable. This is obviously hogwash and what led me to doubt his "theory" so long ago. If populations were relatively stable there would not be so many extinct species and not so numerous missing links. He got it wrong but ancient people got it right. Change in species is driven by behavior which is a reflection of consciousness and determined by the individual's genes and experience. Humans have a warped perspective and are the only species which has no understanding of consciousness.

Just keep misstating my beliefs and theories because I'm no longer going to even try to straighten you out and will rarely respond to your nonsense at all. And just like you've always done my response will be to a few words that are hardly relevant to your post.

 

[F1fan]

Nobody is very good at discussing things that lie outside of their assumptions.

This is the only thing you demonstrate well with your posts.

Fortunately evolution doesn't have to rely on assumptions because it has massive evidence.

 

[cladking]

This is the only thing you demonstrate well with your posts.

Fortunately evolution doesn't have to rely on assumptions because it has massive evidence.

I keep asking for evidence of a gradual change in any species and nobody has come up with one yet.

Meanwhile I have shown sudden changes in several species in this thread.

I believe the two statements above are true only because the "Theory of Evolution" is wrong. It can not make prediction where mine can.

 

[F1fan]

I keep asking for evidence of a gradual change in any species and nobody has come up with one yet.

Then you didn't pay attention in the 7th grade. But any textbook on biology answers this. So you haven't done your homework?

Meanwhile I have shown sudden changes in several species in this thread.

Wasn't one of those the peppered moth? That wasn't sudden.

I believe the two statements above are true only because the "Theory of Evolution" is wrong. It can not make prediction where mine can.

All belief is uncertain, so can you admit you might be mistaken in your belief?

And why would anyone care what you believe when you admit you don't have adequate knowledge about biology?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Let's play a game then since you don't want to discuss anything rationally.

I'll list a change in life that occurs suddenly within a single generation of a species and you list a change that requires many generations. Since you won't list any, I'll go first;

CONCEPTION.

I can list several hundred such sudden changes and you can list none. Should I prove conception is sudden or will you stipulate that it is?

Now you'll hem and haw because you don't even have one other than "evolution".

I do want to discuss things rationally. Do you think you will start talking about science rationally anytime soon?

As I said, no one is claiming there are not events in biology that occur at a rapid pace. Your ridiculous claim that everything in biology happens suddenly is unsupported. You have nothing to support that claim. Just make it up like everything else you post. Like that made up name for humans that you use.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I keep asking for evidence of a gradual change in any species and nobody has come up with one yet.

Meanwhile I have shown sudden changes in several species in this thread.

I believe the two statements above are true only because the "Theory of Evolution" is wrong. It can not make prediction where mine can.

You are the one making the wild and ridiculous claim about instant species. You provide the evidence. The experiments. Etc.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evolution occurs on the species level. The sort of changes you are discussing are not evolution.

Of course they aren't. He hasn't got anything to turn to except events that no one is arguing do not occur quickly.

I must be board just to waste my time on his nonsense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Where is the experiment to support this?

You claim that you have experimental evidence for everything.

And what does that have to do with evolution? Is this a pathetic diversion?

No, you can't. You cannot even tell the truth about how many you have already 'listed'.

It is pathetic. Can't say whether it is a diversion or not.

 

[joelr]

Some very interesting material in this post. What source are you quoting, in the paragraph in bold?

That is pretty standard stuff if you read the historicity of the period which focuses on where the ideas come from rather than theology where it's often assumed it's true and not borrowed myths.
They are sourcing Sanders and Wright;

Heaven - Wikipedia


2nd Temple Judaism is the occupation of the Persians and Greek cultures and their myths were assimilated into Judaism over those several centuries. It's also when th eOT was officially put together.

 

[exchemist]

That is pretty standard stuff if you read the historicity of the period which focuses on where the ideas come from rather than theology where it's often assumed it's true and not borrowed myths.
They are sourcing Sanders and Wright;

Heaven - Wikipedia


2nd Temple Judaism is the occupation of the Persians and Greek cultures and their myths were assimilated into Judaism over those several centuries. It's also when th eOT was officially put together.

Thanks, it was the source I was after. Far from challenging this, I simply was intrigued as to where I could read more about it.

 

[joelr]

All real science is based on experiment but there are no experiments underlying the linchpins of evolutionary "science". The experiments must be heeded but the interpretations of these are based on beliefs.

I would agree that it's entirely possible that life (consciousness) arose from simpler chemical interactions but this hardly makes all the assumptions and interpretations of "Evolution" to be "known science". Much of evolutionary "theory" is actually Look and See Science and is based on the opinion of Peers who come and go suddenly leaving new consensus when they pass on. Reality doesn't change when Peers die but beliefs do. The reality of change in species is fixed in all cases so the death of individual scientists don't affect this other than the insignificant direct effect.

No science is based on data. Evidence. Theories which are then tested. Evolution predicted we evolved from some type of ape/chimp-like mammal. Then over many decades we slowly began to find fossils that demonstrated a picture of how this happened. We see apes from millions of years ago slowly walk more and more, lose body hair, increase in brain size, eventually use tools. The more modern finds from a few 100,000 years ago show Hominids very similar to Homo-Sapien (H. Heidlbergensis). We see this with all species.

The beginning of life - abiogenesis is a different aspect of life. Evolution has many parts. Some are proven facts because they have been observed. Some require fossil evidence. You have to be specific with evolution. All of the available evidence points to evolution being the best theory by far.

Even if it was wrong it doesn't tie in to the truth of stories. If evolution was shown to be completely wrong does that mean the Zororastrians in Iran were correct all along? Their God created people also. Same with Krishna? Religious stories have only mythical tales with no evidence. None are more likely than any other.

All science is doing is taking evidence and making theories and seeing if they fit the data. In academia it's considered a fact. Religious folks who oppose evolution for some reason will soon have to switch to "God made evolution happen".

These ideas about evolution you have are incorrect. Opinions change when new information comes out and is peer-reviewed by many scientists. If enough experts have reason to accept a new line of thinking then it might become consensus. I don't think you have actually investigated evolutionary science much or read any books by scholars in the field.

 

[joelr]

Thanks. Would have been helpful (and good forum practice) if our poster could have given his sources.

We were not there. I didn't know if they had any interest in getting into historicity yet. Sourcing Wiki i not my favorite but I know the work sourced so if we went that direction I can use the scholar.

 

[joelr]

Again there is no evidence to show a gradual change in any species! There is no evidence any change in any species is caused by "survival of the fittest".

ALL the evidence shows ALL change in ALL life is SUDDEN. No evidence shows sudden change in species is caused by "survival of the fittest". You BELIEVE in survival of the fittest despite the lack of logic and evidence.

Are you looking to find out if these ideas are actually true?

Tempo and mode in hominid evolution

Abstract
The nature of human evolution has been viewed recently as a specific example of a more general model of evolution termed "punctuated equilibrium". The characteristics of this model are long periods of little or not evolutionary change (stasis) interspersed with periods of rapid (punctuated) morphological change. Careful analysis of the hominid fossil record over the past 4.0 million years, however, suggests no well documented examples of either stasis or punctuation. The evidence for the evolution of the hominid lineage is most reasonably interpreted by a model of more gradual change with periods of varying rates of evolution.
Tempo and mode in hominid evolution - PubMed

TESTS
evolution - The fossil record

The authority of this kind of test is overwhelming; each of the thousands of genes and thousands of proteins contained in an organism provides an independent test of that organism’s evolutionary history. Not all possible tests have been performed, but many hundreds have been done, and not one has given evidence contrary to evolution. There is probably no other notion in any field of science that has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as the evolutionary origin of living organisms.

Gradual and punctuational evolution
The fossil record indicates that morphological evolution is by and large a gradual process. Major evolutionary changes are usually due to a building-up over the ages of relatively small changes. But the fossil record is discontinuous. Fossil strata are separated by sharp boundaries; accumulation of fossils within a geologic deposit (stratum) is fairly constant over time, but the transition from one stratum to another may involve gaps of tens of thousands of years. Whereas the fossils within a stratum exhibit little morphological variation, new species—characterized by small but discontinuous morphological changes—typically appear at the boundaries between strata. That is not to say that the transition from one stratum to another always involves sudden changes in morphology; on the contrary, fossil forms often persist virtually unchanged through several geologic strata, each representing millions of years.

The apparent morphological discontinuities of the fossil record are often attributed by paleontologists to the discontinuity of the sediments—that is, to the substantial time gaps encompassed in the boundaries between strata. The assumption is that, if the fossil deposits were more continuous, they would show a more gradual transition of form. Even so, morphological evolution would not always keep progressing gradually, because some forms, at least, remain unchanged for extremely long times. Examples are the lineages known as “living fossils”—for instance, the lamp shell Lingula, a genus of brachiopod (a phylum of shelled invertebrates) that appears to have remained essentially unchanged since the Ordovician Period, some 450 million years ago; or the tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus), a reptile that has shown little morphological evolution for nearly 200 million years, since the early Mesozoic.


There are so many types of tests and branches of evolutionary science covered in this article it's amazing. The lines of evidence are endless.

 

[joelr]

"The scientific community" is BY DEFINITION the group of individuals who all share the same premises.

Can you not even see the sentence above or are you incapable of understanding simple English?

Wrong. Every single grad student dreams of turning science on it's head like Einstein did. There are thousands of new papers every year exploring dead ends by people looking to make new discoveries.

The premises held onto are those that will always be correct. Like Newtons inverse square law of gravitation. Einstein added details to that and made it more precise. But that won't just become wrong one day. Many other theories are the best attempt at what is true. To change it new ideas are explored. This conspiracy theory crank is not reflecting any truth. Just creationist conspiracy.

 

[exchemist]

We were not there. I didn't know if they had any interest in getting into historicity yet. Sourcing Wiki i not my favorite but I know the work sourced so if we went that direction I can use the scholar.

It's fine, you've given me the source and I'm happy.

 

[exchemist]

Wrong. Every single grad student dreams of turning science on it's head like Einstein did. There are thousands of new papers every year exploring dead ends by people looking to make new discoveries.

The premises held onto are those that will always be correct. Like Newtons inverse square law of gravitation. Einstein added details to that and made it more precise. But that won't just become wrong one day. Many other theories are the best attempt at what is true. To change it new ideas are explored. This conspiracy theory crank is not reflecting any truth. Just creationist conspiracy.

I think you touch on a significant point about creationism. It seems to me that creationists must either think there is some kind of a vast atheist conspiracy by the science community, or they must think that every scientifically educated person is somehow the victim of a mass delusion. Most creationists seem very reluctant to acknowledge that this is the implication of what they say.

 

[tas8831]

Excuse me, but you created a thread called Ancient Reality, where you believe that the people BEFORE the Tower of Babel, which claimed to be 2000 BCE or before 4000 years ago, all spoke a single language that you called the Ancient Language, and between 4000 years ago and 40,000 years ago, they spoke this same Ancient Language, and you considered these people to be real scientists, who practiced the Ancient Science.

While I am familiar with that thread I do not recall seeing @cladking ever once referring to the experiments he ran to test his claims as you lay out in your post. Surely, I just missed them?

 

[tas8831]

Every time one of you posts you are merely proving my point.

"A "moment" is a theoretical point in time during which nothing at all can occur. In other words a great deal about life, consciousness, and evolution occur in FAR LESS THAN A NANOSECOND. Change is exceedingly rapid dependent upon definitions. But is always fast and rarely does anything require more than a generation or two."


So sayeth the local high school grad expert on Egypt and all things scientific.