The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[cladking]

No, they teach science, and you did not pay attention.

I went to school in a different age when they attempted to teach us to think for ourselves.

 

[cladking]

Like when a black cat gives birth to a white cat? It's suddenly a white kitten that was born?

Yes! all change is sudden. There was one cat and suddenly there was one cat plus one cat.

There is no such thing as "two cats" because you can't reduce consciousness. They are not interchangeable.

Pardon me for interjecting, but in relation to the other poster's argument, I must say that if I did not have a firm belief in the Bible (not to mean that I can explain how and what date God created the heavens and the earth and other things "hard to understand" in the Scriptures) I would likely (1) not care what Darwin taught much, (2) probably have gone along with the idea of Darwinian evolution, and (3) have no hope for a wonderful life ahead. Oh, and probably be on mind-altering legal drugs.

I think this is a lot of what's wrong with the world. Religion is healthy for large numbers of people. Because it is based in ancient science it resonates with reality and with modern science.

Most people don't understand science but are victims of scientism. They've become rootless and jaundiced by principles they don't understand and are frequently wrong. Worst is the widespread belief that science is right about everything and knows everything. Many people believe even a Creator has been disproven. They are left to become hedonists, narcissists, and greedy. They belong to a new religion more dangerous and holier than thou than any religion that ever existed.

This may be the gravest threat to the continued survival of the human species no matter what you call it.

 

[cladking]

They've become rootless and jaundiced by principles they don't understand and are frequently wrong.

Egyptology holds that the average joe is just here to serve our betters and evolution teaches us this is where we belong.

Meanwhile nobody is concerned with our consciousness or souls. We are herded like cattle and told what to do and buy. We are numbers to be controlled.

Science is a product of assumptions and language even when actual experiment is performed. But any result can be obtained if you don't perform experiment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Every single observable change in life or species is sudden.

Why should I or anybody believe humans or anything else arose gradually over billions of years? We have ancestors who are each different but where is the fossil that shows the transition between these species.

THE FOSSIL DOES NOT EXIST BECAUSE THE ANIMAL NEVER EXISTED!!!!!! There are no missing links because they never existed. Species change suddenly at bottlenecks as a result of behavior stemming from consciousness. Even genetic diversity arises at bottlenecks. Species could change as a result of "survival of the fittest" at bottlenecks but this must be exceeding rare because ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE FIT.

No, it isn't. There are examples of cocolithophores where one can see the slow change over time. Do you now why? Because chalk is made up of the continual deposition of them. Very small changes can be observed.

Your complaint is rather hypocritical since it has been explained to you more than once how rare fossilization of land animals is. The lack of fossils was predicted ahead of time. The fossil record is just one source of evidence for the theory of evolution, and it is not even the strongest evidence.

It is only the evidence that is most obvious to amateurs. Can you please repeat that:

The fossil record is not the only evidence that supports the theory. It is not even the strongest. It is only the most obvious to the uneducateed.



Darwin did not base his theory on fossil evidence at all. Paleontology was in its infancy during his time. He did predict quite correctly (ooh another prediction of evolution) that the fossil record would improve over time and support his theory..

Didn't you yourself say that the ability to predict things with the theory is one of the most important traits of a theory.

And lastly please do not forget:

You yourself demonstrated that you do not have a theory. I asked you a reasonable question and you ducked it. Ducking that question about your "theory" told us that you do not have one.

Any questions?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Egyptology holds that the average joe is just here to serve our betters and evolution teaches us this is where we belong.

Meanwhile nobody is concerned with our consciousness or souls. We are herded like cattle and told what to do and buy. We are numbers to be controlled.

Science is a product of assumptions and language even when actual experiment is performed. But any result can be obtained if you don't perform experiment.

Have you ever heard creationists abuse the term "scientism"? Of course you have. If we addressed morals and policies based upon the theory of evolution that would arguably be "scientism". The application of science where it does not belong. Morals are more in the area of philosophy. Not science. The sciences only describe what is, you are looking for something that describes what should be. Evolution does not do that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Maybe some types of fish would be surviving better out of water. But you think there is evolutionary pressure for fishes to become land rovers in some circumstances as they "sense the environment" that may be harmful to their survival? Of course, they'd have to sense this for a long enough time for them to change, morph, or evolve, right?

This is one of the flaws in your thinking. The ancestors of land animals did not consciously choose to evolve. There is no evidence supporting a view that evolution is driven by conscious choice. Environmental change may drive evolution, but it does not have to change so much that it effects immediate survival of a population. It doesn't have to change at all, if an open niche is available and some variation in the population allows a subset of the population to exploit that niche.

You cannot seem to pull yourself away for the wrong-headed notions of magical change and forethought. I assume that it is a lack of understanding coupled with a fear of the fragility of your current belief system. You don't want to look at the facts and recognize the logic of scientific conclusions, since you think that means your religious views would fall apart.

 

[gnostic]

Darwin did not base his theory on fossil evidence at all. Paleontology was in its infancy during his time. He did predict quite correctly (ooh another prediction of evolution) that the fossil record would improve over time and support his theory.

Yes. Paleontology was fairly new at that time.

Darwin’s specialities started out in botany and geology areas, and only acquired his skills with studies in animals during his voyage on the HMS Beagle.

Like you said, SZ, paleontology was still new at that time, so much of his works were in the areas of extant species than that of fossils.

Darwin’s friend, Thomas Henry Huxley was more knowledgeable in paleontology than Darwin. Huxley was better at comparing anatomy than Darwin; in comparison, Darwin was more of dabbler in paleontology.

It was Huxley who analyzed dinosaur fossils and compared them with current species of birds, and predicted that birds evolved from (specific types of) dinosaurs.

Today, most paleontologists and biologists agreed with Huxley’s comparison and his theory about dinosaur-bird relation.

 

[cladking]

Didn't you yourself say that the ability to predict things with the theory is one of the most important traits of a theory.

My theory predicts that there will be more fossils found to fill more of the gaps between the sudden changes in species. Your observation does no specifically support your beliefs.

You yourself demonstrated that you do not have a theory.

My theory in modern scientific terms is a series of hypotheses. I've explained this countless times. "Theory" also means "hypothesis" or even "guess". Whether or not the "Theory of Evolution" is really a "theory" or not is one of opinion and my opinion is that it is not supported by experiment so is more accurately called an "hypothesis". There are two reasons I call my "hypotheses" a "theory" . First and foremost it is far more encompassing than the theory of evolution so has far more evidence and logic to support it. Really now, if homo sapiens really are extinct as I aver based on widespread evidence don't you think it follows that some or most of my related hypotheses are equally correct? You can't prove any part of my "theory" is wrong and I continually find new evidence that supports it. This evidence comes not only from deduction and logic but from many far flung branches of science, ancient writing, and even religion.

The other reason I call my hypotheses a "theory" is because I use the same general sort of metaphysics as ancient science did. In term of ancient science my "hypotheses" is most assuredly a theory. In terms of ancient science my theory would be the mother of thot. They would just pencil her into the pantheon and start doing experiment as well. Her name would be "it follows".

Any questions?

Have you ever tried to tame a deer?

 

[Subduction Zone]

My theory predicts that there will be more fossils found to fill more of the gaps between the sudden changes in species. Your observation does no specifically support your beliefs.

You have no theory. Do you even know what a theory is? All that you have is an ad hoc explanation at best. And yes, the observations perfectly support the theory of evolution. You may not understand how they do so, but that is not our fault.

My theory in modern scientific terms is a series of hypotheses. I've explained this countless times. "Theory" also means "hypothesis" or even "guess". Whether or not the "Theory of Evolution" is really a "theory" or not is one of opinion and my opinion is that it is not supported by experiment so is more accurately called an "hypothesis". There are two reasons I call my "hypotheses" a "theory" . First and foremost it is far more encompassing than the theory of evolution so has far more evidence and logic to support it. Really now, if homo sapiens really are extinct as I aver based on widespread evidence don't you think it follows that some or most of my related hypotheses are equally correct? You can't prove any part of my "theory" is wrong and I continually find new evidence that supports it. This evidence comes not only from deduction and logic but from many far flung branches of science, ancient writing, and even religion.

The other reason I call my hypotheses a "theory" is because I use the same general sort of metaphysics as ancient science did. In term of ancient science my "hypotheses" is most assuredly a theory. In terms of ancient science my theory would be the mother of thot. They would just pencil her into the pantheon and start doing experiment as well. Her name would be "it follows".

Another obviously false claims that fails on a fractal level again. Why do you keep making claims that you can never support? Do you think that you are fooling anyone?

Okay, you now are claiming that it is a hypothesis. You still have to answer the same question. If you cannot answer it you do not even have a hypothesis:

What reasonable test based upon the merits of your hypothesis could possibly refute it?

It is the same question that you ducked earlier demonstrating that you do not have a theory. Scientific hypotheses have to be testable too. Scientists are not afraid to "Put their money where their mouths are" by being willing to properly test their ideas. Let's see if you have anything more than hot gas.

Have you ever tried to tame a deer?

In regards to the topic of the thread and your lack of understanding even the basics of science. One cannot do science if one does not understand what it is.

 

[F1fan]

Every single observable change in life or species is sudden.

What do you mean by sudden? I've asked you twice now and you avoided answering. Do you consider 100,000 years as sudden? If not, then what do you mean sudden? If you can't answer then it's a serious flaw in your speculation.

Why should I or anybody believe humans or anything else arose gradually over billions of years?

Facts and data.

The reason people reject evolution is typically ignorance due to religious influence. This is most commonly Christian influence, but even Muslims are getting into this denial.

We have ancestors who are each different but where is the fossil that shows the transition between these species.

The changes are subtle over many tens to hundreds of thousands of years, to even millions of years. To distinguish a species as distinct from an ancestor is not completely precise. When fossil remains are found and classified it is put into the lineage. There are distinct features of homo habilis to homo erectus to homo sapiens. Will there be distinguishing trains in samples between these established species, yes. But species are defined and categorized for the sake of reference, and if other samples are found that are distinguished enough from established species then it will be named. But evolution is a gradual change over time, and arguable every organism is a step in the change. Is the change significant enough to be their own species? No.

THE FOSSIL DOES NOT EXIST BECAUSE THE ANIMAL NEVER EXISTED!!!!!!

Given your vast expertise in nonsense I confirm your claim is nonsense.

There are no missing links because they never existed. Species change suddenly at bottlenecks as a result of behavior stemming from consciousness. Even genetic diversity arises at bottlenecks. Species could change as a result of "survival of the fittest" at bottlenecks but this must be exceeding rare because ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE FIT.

Sorry, no one here trusts how you declare anything if it goes against what experts report.

 

[F1fan]

My theory predicts that there will be more fossils found to fill more of the gaps between the sudden changes in species. Your observation does no specifically support your beliefs.

Oh, you are confusing the word "sudden" for gradual in your tabloid level speculation.

Is English your second language?

 

[cladking]

Morals are more in the area of philosophy. Not science.

And this is why the species is devolving.

Morals must be based on logic, common sense, and knowledge and applicable to every individual equally. Law should then be based as a boundary to morals.

The reason morals aren't based in science is the exact same reason it is wrong about evolution and so many things; it ignores consciousness.

I would agree that the application of moral boundaries to modern humans is akin to herding cats but this is the point of "justice"; to adjust law to the individual and the specific circumstances, to determine if his behavior actually occurred and how far outside the bounds it was. Instead we have set the bar at the lowest common denominator and instituted "zero tolerance policies". Meanwhile serious transgressions go unpunished and unnoted. But anyone can be punished for something at any time because everything is against some law. The masses are thus controlled as our "betters" do as they please.

It's all tied up in a nice little bow around false assumptions. Doctrine prevails rather than Knowledge > Understanding > Creation. Meanwhile we still face serious challenges to the survival of the species as threats are ignored, unknown, or politicized. Assumptions are now sacrosanct and challenging them is a death knell to scientists or even to our leaders. The rejection of doctrine is becoming dangerous even to the average joe as words become more important than actions or results. Incompetence is no longer a detriment to anybody or their career.

 

[YoursTrue]

What do you mean by sudden? I've asked you twice now and you avoided answering. Do you consider 100,000 years as sudden? If not, then what do you mean sudden? If you can't answer then it's a serious flaw in your speculation.

I think cladking explained it (and I agree) that there is one cat, then there are two cats. There is not one cat then a devolvement to something that was not a cat. Or evolvement to something not a cat.

 

[cladking]

...if it goes against what experts report

If the experts are so smart why can't they predict which fox will eat which rabbits. Why are they wholly incapable of predicting which individual is less fit? Don't they have the ability to test a rabbit and a fox? How you you tell if a cunning rabbit that is fast can escape a far more cunning fox that has slowed down a bit but has lots of experience? Your "theory" is vacuous. It is simply assuming the conclusion that dead rabbits can't reproduce so mustta been less fit then new ones. You assume that species change because the ones left behind were left behind. "Survival of the fittest" sounds good but it is not supported. It is an assumption.

"Experts" are only experts. They are not Gods who create reality but humans who are trying to understand it just like everyone else. All opinion is irrelevant to reality and this includes expert opinion.

As a rule expert opinion is most valuable when it is split 60/ 40. The majority are more likely to be more correct. When it is unanimous it is because they share the same assumptions and they might all be wrong. In every case expert opinion is better than anyone else's but it might be wrong. I am trying to list the reasons that expert opinion is wrong about evolution. I suppose I should start listing more reasons now if we agree to disagree about dogs.

 

[cladking]

I think cladking explained it (and I agree) that there is one cat, then there are two cats. There is not one cat then a devolvement to something that was not a cat. Or evolvement to something not a cat.

I think we still need to change our perspective to see the errors in "evolution". "Evolution" assumes every individual of a species is identical and any actual differences can be factored out in experiment. I doubt this in the extreme. Some things can not be reduced to experiment at this time. Consciousness is life and "evolution" is change in consciousness.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes! all change is sudden. There was one cat and suddenly there was one cat plus one cat.

There is no such thing as "two cats" because you can't reduce consciousness. They are not interchangeable.



I think this is a lot of what's wrong with the world. Religion is healthy for large numbers of people. Because it is based in ancient science it resonates with reality and with modern science.

Most people don't understand science but are victims of scientism. They've become rootless and jaundiced by principles they don't understand and are frequently wrong. Worst is the widespread belief that science is right about everything and knows everything. Many people believe even a Creator has been disproven. They are left to become hedonists, narcissists, and greedy. They belong to a new religion more dangerous and holier than thou than any religion that ever existed.

This may be the gravest threat to the continued survival of the human species no matter what you call it.

Opinions can influence actions, wouldn't you say? Let's say I have a friend that I greatly appreciate. Hold him in high esteem, knowing what he did for me. Would I hold up that person for ridicule? No! I say resoundingly. I can acknowledgement tactfully his failures, but i wouldn't center on them. Because the positive greatly outweighs the negative. As far as I am concerned.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think we still need to change our perspective to see the errors in "evolution". "Evolution" assumes every individual of a species is identical and any actual differences can be factored out in experiment. I doubt this in the extreme. Some things can not be reduced to experiment at this time. Consciousness is life and "evolution" is change in consciousness.

I have heard that plants respond to types of music, but frankly I doubt they are conscious in the thinking and pondering sense. They are reacting. And not evolving except maybe the music knocked them out of existence.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think we still need to change our perspective to see the errors in "evolution". "Evolution" assumes every individual of a species is identical and any actual differences can be factored out in experiment. I doubt this in the extreme. Some things can not be reduced to experiment at this time.

By the way, I see your point.

 

[YoursTrue]

Egyptology holds that the average joe is just here to serve our betters and evolution teaches us this is where we belong.

Meanwhile nobody is concerned with our consciousness or souls. We are herded like cattle and told what to do and buy. We are numbers to be controlled.

Science is a product of assumptions and language even when actual experiment is performed. But any result can be obtained if you don't perform experiment.

OK, we're not allowed to say certain things on these forums, and I respect that, however when I was growing up I knew very, v-e-r-y little about the Bible. I knew it was there; I knew people believed it, but I didn't because I had little knowledge of it. In fact, I wound up saying that I did not believe in God, either. It wasn't until later that I began reading and better understanding it. And that -- life could not possibly have just "come about."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You have no theory. Do you even know what a theory is? All that you have is an ad hoc explanation at best. And yes, the observations perfectly support the theory of evolution. You may not understand how they do so, but that is not our fault.



Another obviously false claims that fails on a fractal level again. Why do you keep making claims that you can never support? Do you think that you are fooling anyone?

Okay, you now are claiming that it is a hypothesis. You still have to answer the same question. If you cannot answer it you do not even have a hypothesis:

What reasonable test based upon the merits of your hypothesis could possibly refute it?

It is the same question that you ducked earlier demonstrating that you do not have a theory. Scientific hypotheses have to be testable too. Scientists are not afraid to "Put their money where their mouths are" by being willing to properly test their ideas. Let's see if you have anything more than hot gas.



In regards to the topic of the thread and your lack of understanding even the basics of science. One cannot do science if one does not understand what it is.

Can you imagine expecting to find more fossils filling in gaps in sudden change. If the change is sudden, what gaps could there be?

It is just ridiculous.