The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[cladking]

Have you ever heard of Tiktaalik?

So why don't you tell us why you believe this animal slowly turned into land animals and why you believe consciousness, genes, and behavior took a back seat to fitness?

Where is evidence OR logic to support your beliefs?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So why don't you tell us why you believe this animal slowly turned into land animals and why you believe consciousness, genes, and behavior took a back seat to fitness?

Where is evidence OR logic to support your beliefs?

What? You need to work on your questions. That animal did not slow turn into a land animal. Individuals do not evolve.

Tiktaalik is an example of an prediction. You asked for one and you got one. Poorly asked questions will not change that fact.

 

[cladking]

Tiktaalik is an example of an prediction.

I'm almost afraid to ask but how is it a prediction?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm almost afraid to ask but how is it a prediction?

You really need to have an attitude adjustment. Do not ask rude questions if you want an answer.

As I said it is a transitional species. There is no doubt about that. And using the theory of evolution and geology it was predicted that they could find such a species there.

The problem is that you are shooting in the dark. This explanation will do you no good because you do not even understand the basics of evolution. You have demonstrated that you do not even understand the scientific method. That is why I offered to work from the ground up. First one must learn what science is and how it is done. One must learn what is and what is not evidence. And then it helps a lot if one understands the terms of the science being discussed. You have failed at all of these. But there is no reason that you could not learn.

 

[cladking]

The lesson on etiquette is much appreciated.

But you didn't answer the questions.

"So why don't you tell us why you believe this animal slowly turned into land animals and why you believe consciousness, genes, and behavior took a back seat to fitness?"

The existence of evidence can never prove your interpretation of that evidence. Even by your own silly chart "evidence" is a starting point, not an ending point.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no such thing as "scientism", plus "peer review" is simply not as you are portraying it, as it is a process whereas other scientists must have access to the evidence so as it can be reviewed and possibly "cross-checked" for accuracy. It is science that uses the "scientific method", not religion. . .
Ever hear of "forensic science", which has often been used to get convictions in criminal cases?

It isn't evolution. Genetics and similarities do not portray evolution. Of the Darwinian kind. There is nothing to link humans with gorillas or fish in real time, real life, the links are genetically lost somehow, oddly enough. Maybe you think otherwise. I have learned the real gaps cannot be explained anyway in actuality (not conjecture). But now you got me wondering -- let's say a gorilla killed a man but the discoverers of the man's body did not know that. Ya think genetics (forensic science) might solve that happenstance? Could be -- why don't you tell me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The lesson on etiquette is much appreciated.

But you didn't answer the questions.

"So why don't you tell us why you believe this animal slowly turned into land animals and why you believe consciousness, genes, and behavior took a back seat to fitness?"

The existence of evidence can never prove your interpretation of that evidence. Even by your own silly chart "evidence" is a starting point, not an ending point.

Your first claim was rude and poorly worded. at that point you failed.. It was not only poorly worded, you demonstrated that you do not understand the terminology being used.

Can you be polite? The chart was not "silly" I have not made fun of your ignorance. I have only pointed it out. Try again. See if you can answer questions politely and properly. Is that too much to ask?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It isn't evolution. Genetics and similarities do not portray evolution. Of the Darwinian kind. There is nothing to link humans with gorillas or fish in real time, real life, the links are genetically lost somehow, oddly enough. Maybe you think otherwise. I have learned the real gaps cannot be explained anyway in actuality (not conjecture). But now you got me wondering -- let's say a gorilla killed a man but the discoverers of the man's body did not know that. Ya think genetics (forensic science) might solve that happenstance? Could be -- why don't you tell me.

It is evidence for evolution. That cannot be denied. At least it cannot be honestly denied by someone that understand the topic.

 

[YoursTrue]

These are some pretty good questions and I have no answers but you might consider that perhaps life is far more widespread than we believe. It is entirely possible it came into existence on only a single planet but was spread through the cosmos as stars have gone nova. How it came into existence is a perfectly legitimate question but it's entirely unreasonable to suppose that molecular chains grew until consciousness arose in one. Once consciousness exists then it would simply adapt and change to suit conditions. Individuals simply strive to survive.

The change from a chemical to a consciousness may seem an insurmountable hurdle but there are strange chemicals out there and truly stranger conditions. Perhaps it required a Creator to set everything in motion or the Creator engineered all of time and space. But in any case I think there is an answer and I think that it will fit with what is known.

Current beliefs are based on some faulty assumptions and the assumption no God was needed is as irrational as supposing that nothing could exist without God. The job of science is to devise experiments that will lead to knowledge. But until we actually know something we don't really know anything at all. At this point we know virtually nothing at all. But everyone seems to have all the answers anyway and it would never occur to them that it isn't possible to understand "evolution" without understanding consciousness and the origin of life wouldn't exist without consciousness. We can't only not know what we know without consciousness we can't even know at all.

Now believers in science can tell me how they know I'm wrong.

Some evolutionists I have read about claim it could be the first something that turned into life on earth came from stardust. Landing on the earth. Interesting I think that the Bible says man came from dust and will go back to dust when he dies.

 

[gnostic]

That's sad really. I believe in no conspiracy of any sort and you believe Peers create reality through voting on it.

The part I’ve highlighted, is exactly that, conspiracy theory, which is based on

(A) either on your ignorance of what Peer Review is and how it work,

(B) or you are making things up.​

There are no voting in Peer Review.

One or more independent scientists will examine and analyze the models, evidence and data, to ensure that it meet the requirements of Scientific Method. They will also independently check for errors, inconsistencies/discrepancies, and more importantly, fraudulent acts (such as doctoring data).

Take for instance, Intelligent Design advocate, Michael Behe, who tried to submit Irreducible Complexity (IC) paper. He submitted no evidence, hence he has no verifiable data.

What he have, are some illustrations and some computerized charts that are not based on any data from evidence he has gathered. So his charts are made of false information.

No reviewers will accept baseless charts. His work on IC has never been peer-reviewed.

So what does Behe do?

He write a book explaining and justifying his Irreducible Complexity, called Darwin’s Black Box (1996) and sent it to a publisher (Free Press) that don’t do peer-review.

Behe has even admitted at the Kitzmiller vs Dover case (2005) that there are no original data and no original research for Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design and Behe’s own Irreducible Complexity are pseudoscience concepts, based on creationism, where they change god’s name to Designer.

Peer Review are used to weed out any pseudoscience concepts and concepts that have no verifiable evidence and data.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some evolutionists I have read about claim it could be the first something that turned into life on earth came from stardust. Landing on the earth. Interesting I think that the Bible says man came from dust and will go back to dust when he dies.

You may have understood them. And "evolutionist" is an improper term. When the correct term is "scientist".

 

[cladking]

Your first claim was rude and poorly worded. at that point you failed.. It was not only poorly worded, you demonstrated that you do not understand the terminology being used.

Can you be polite? The chart was not "silly" I have not made fun of your ignorance. I have only pointed it out. Try again. See if you can answer questions politely and properly. Is that too much to ask?

So you have no answers and don't need them because you say I'm stupid, rude, and ignorant.

Who needs answers when the alternative is chaos or something you can't believe.

Just keep repeating "evolution is caused by survival of the fittest and consciousness is irrelevant to all life except Peers.".

 

[YoursTrue]

The part I’ve highlighted, is exactly that, conspiracy theory, which is based on

(A) either on your ignorance of what Peer Review is and how it work,

(B) or you are making things up.​

There are no voting in Peer Review.

One or more independent scientists will examine and analyze the models, evidence and data, to ensure that it meet the requirements of Scientific Method. They will also independently check for errors, inconsistencies/discrepancies, and more importantly, fraudulent acts (such as doctoring data).

Take for instance, Intelligent Design advocate, Michael Behe, who tried to submit Irreducible Complexity (IC) paper. He submitted no evidence, hence he has no verifiable data.

What he have, are some illustrations and some computerized charts that are not based on any data from evidence he has gathered. So his charts are made of false information.

No reviewers will accept baseless charts. His work on IC has never been peer-reviewed.

So what does Behe do?

He write a book explaining and justifying his Irreducible Complexity, called Darwin’s Black Box (1996) and sent it to a publisher (Free Press) that don’t do peer-review.

Behe has even admitted at the Kitzmiller vs Dover case (2005) that there are no original data and no original research for Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design and Behe’s own Irreducible Complexity are pseudoscience concepts, based on creationism, where they change god’s name to Designer.

Peer Review are used to weed out any pseudoscience concepts and concepts that have no verifiable evidence and data.

As far as irreducible complexity, nothing, absolutely nothing is available to demonstrate a reducible basic substance. That, so far, is unavailable. Almost, but not quite like the "unknown common ancestor." And I am not agreeing with all of Michael Behe's ideas, but that one is irreducible. In that complex arrangement.

 

[YoursTrue]

So you have no answers and don't need them because you say I'm stupid, rude, and ignorant.

Who needs answers when the alternative is chaos or something you can't believe.

Just keep repeating "evolution is caused by survival of the fittest and consciousness is irrelevant to all life except Peers.".

That's what they do when you don't agree with them...Yes, I've read about the prejudice with so-called "peer review."

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you have no answers and don't need them because you say I'm stupid, rude, and ignorant.

Who needs answers when the alternative is chaos or something you can't believe.

Just keep repeating "evolution is caused by survival of the fittest and consciousness is irrelevant to all life except Peers.".

I never said that you were stupid. You have been rude. And you have demonstrated that you do not know what you are talking about even in your questions. The rest of your post is pretty much nonsense.

Evolution is supported by endless scientific evidence. There is no reliable evidence for any other concept. In fact if you deny evolution by the same "logic" you should deny gravity since there is more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's what they do when you don't agree with them...Yes, I've read about the prejudice with so-called "peer review."

A claim made by science deniers but never substantiated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There simply are, and I mean irreducibly, absolutely no real (and I mean real) verification of the Darwinian style explanation of how humans came about. None -- whatsoever. None. Zilch. None. Nada. None. Except imagination and conjecture.

LOL! Just keep telling yourself that. The theory has been tested and confirmed endlessly. This is the sort of claim that those that do not understand evidence tell themselves to justify a belief in fairy tales.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Take for instance, Intelligent Design advocate, Michael Behe, who tried to submit Irreducible Complexity (IC) paper. He submitted no evidence, hence he has no verifiable data.

What he have, are some illustrations and some computerized charts that are not based on any data from evidence he has gathered. So his charts are made of false information.

No reviewers will accept baseless charts. His work on IC has never been peer-reviewed.

So what does Behe do?

He write a book explaining and justifying his Irreducible Complexity, called Darwin’s Black Box (1996) and sent it to a publisher (Free Press) that don’t do peer-review.

Behe has even admitted at the Kitzmiller vs Dover case (2005) that there are no original data and no original research for Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design and Behe’s own Irreducible Complexity are pseudoscience concepts, based on creationism, where they change god’s name to Designer.

Peer Review are used to weed out any pseudoscience concepts and concepts that have no verifiable evidence and data.

There simply are, and I mean irreducibly, absolutely no real (and I mean real) verification of the Darwinian style explanation of how humans came about. None -- whatsoever. None. Zilch. None. Nada. None. Except imagination and conjecture. Also nichts.[/QUOTE]
Michaele Behe? The poor fool that was refuted by a mouse trap?

Michael Behe chose some recently discovered problems in biology and claimed that they were "irreducibly complex". The only problem is that half of them were shown not to be irreducibly complex before his work was published and the rest shortly later. Behe was great for comic relief in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case. He ended up looking like a fool on the stand.

 

[cladking]

In fact if you deny evolution by the same "logic" you should deny gravity since there is more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity.

Nobody knows what causes gravity. But you not only know what causes "evolution" but you know that behavior and consciousness are irrelevant to it. You know consciousness is irrelevant even though you don't know the nature of consciousness nor its cause!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Homo omisciencis is a remarkable creature. You not only know what's real (evolution) but you know what's not real (everything else) and you know because Darwin assumed populations remained steady and because Peers are the 7th step of the scientific method. You even know I'm rude because you keep insulting me, belittling me, and insulting my intelligence. You know I won't speak on the subject because the subject is the infallibility of Peers who know change in species must be caused by survival of the fittest and I keep taking about everything else.

None of this seems in the least bit odd to you.

 

[cladking]

A claim made by science deniers but never substantiated.

No. People deny the existence of God. Almost nobody denies the existence of science or the importance of experiment. What is being denied is the belief life mustta sprung from chemicals and evolved into the biosphere by the process of "evolution". What is being denied is your denial of facts and logic.