The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[cladking]

I know. It is impossible to follow his "theory".

One more time ( about the 12th in this thread alone);

Most change in species occurs immediately after a bottleneck that selects for unusual behavior produced by consciousness as a product of genes and experience. Bottlenecks caused by other agents tend not to produce very dramatic change. Almost all genetic diversity that isn't the result of mutation results from localized bottlenecks.

"Survival of the fittest" by no name at all even exists. Changes that result from "natural selection" are insignificant and random.

 

[cladking]

What makes you think that is an assumption? It is a testable observation.

Of course it is. Anyone can see that. The problem is that before it's a testable observation it started as an assumption. All arguments are circular. Only experiment can remove assumptions.

And once again, no, not all observed change is "sudden".

Yet you can show none and instead refer me to some 7th grade text. You're as bad as an Egyptologist who says everyone knows they used ramps as can be seen in books for children.

Of course quite a few changes are going to appear after bottlenecks. They do two things. They are very heavy selection events. They clear the board of quite a few species. That allows new ones to develop. But those changes tend to be only "sudden" in geologic time. This is why you need to define "sudden". On an evolutionary timescale those changes do not appear to be sudden.

Actually I referring to more specific bottlenecks rather than general ones like mass extinction. But you bring up a good point. After massive changes there will be "gradual change" in numerous species as they each jockey for position in rapidly changing niches. Some species will come into existence in dozens of generations instead of one or two. But these will not be the massive changes generally.

Wrong again. There have been so many transitional forms found that the term "missing link" is only used by creationists.

How convenient for you not to see the massive gaps.

The term may or may not be dated but this isn't about semantics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course it is. Anyone can see that. The problem is that before it's a testable observation it started as an assumption. All arguments are circular. Only experiment can remove assumptions.



Yet you can show none and instead refer me to some 7th grade text. You're as bad as an Egyptologist who says everyone knows they used ramps as can be seen in books for children.



Actually I referring to more specific bottlenecks rather than general ones like mass extinction. But you bring up a good point. After massive changes there will be "gradual change" in numerous species as they each jockey for position in rapidly changing niches. Some species will come into existence in dozens of generations instead of one or two. But these will not be the massive changes generally.



How convenient for you not to see the massive gaps.

The term may or may not be dated but this isn't about semantics.

You do not appear to know what an assumption is. Please prove that natural selection is an assumption. Your claim your burden of proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One more time ( about the 12th in this thread alone);

Most change in species occurs immediately after a bottleneck that selects for unusual behavior produced by consciousness as a product of genes and experience. Bottlenecks caused by other agents tend not to produce very dramatic change. Almost all genetic diversity that isn't the result of mutation results from localized bottlenecks.

"Survival of the fittest" by no name at all even exists. Changes that result from "natural selection" are insignificant and random.

Again, provide evidence for consciousness. It appears that you are just spamming the thread with claims that you cannot justify.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet you can show none and instead refer me to some 7th grade text. You're as bad as an Egyptologist who says everyone knows they used ramps as can be seen in books for children.

Sorry, is 7th grade too difficult for you? Seriously I do not remember providing you with any text. If you make a proper request for evidence I will gladly provide some I do not know anything about Egyptology, but with your record I have doubts that is what actual Egyptologists claim.

 

[F1fan]

No. I think experts are sometimes wrong especially when they all agree.

How do you figure they are "sometimes" wrong when they all agree? Just because they all agree?

Don't you think if all experts agree on some fact or result that it's highly likely to be correct? They ARE experts after all.

So, instead of you speculating, which is meaningless, do you have any evidence of experts agreeing on something important (recently, no more examples from 150 years ago) and were wrong about, and this being a bad pattern of error?

Anyone who believes that "peer review" is part of knowledge, understanding, creation are the ones who believe reality is subject to vote.

You don't have a 7th grader's knowledge of science. Peer review just replicates a previous experiment to see if the results are the same.

Anyone who uncritically accepts doctrine and expert opinion are the ones who believe in "settled science".

No, educated people respect the process of science, and how there is a portfolio of knowledge that comes from it. You have the typical contempt for science that comes from the bd influence of conservative Christianity. That you have cited the Bible a few times demonstrates you have been negatively influenced. You have an extreme form of bias.

Politics and (in) science is your problem, not mine.

More of your bad faith claims for which you offer no evidence, so we reject it.

 

[YoursTrue]

My "religion" has changed dozens of times. For many years I was highly anti-religion. I have been a few religions, atheist, agnostic, and a few people haven't thought of.

Now I'm content to just not know and to ponder the nature of humanity and consciousness. Something began reality because even though logic of reality is composed can exist in nothingness, nothing can come into existence through logic alone unless it is axiomatic that time is logical. Even if I could show that time can create energy which can be converted into matter we still couldn't know if God is Time or created time. We couldn't know that our axiom was reality or just the handiest way to create new gadgets.

Humans know the tiniest fraction of .000001% of everything there is to know but they still believe in the study of change in life with no understanding of the nature of life or how it arose. All they have to do is google it or wait for the Word to be handed down from Peers.

I think it's hilarious that the Bible may be more correct than Peers on some issues and possibly far more.

Reading a little about birds today, how do they know how to construct a nest? They don't have to teach their offspring. Rather different from humans constructing something, isn't it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Reading a little about birds today, how do they know how to construct a nest? They don't have to teach their offspring. Rather different from humans constructing something, isn't it?

Biologists do not understand everything about life yet. That is why it is still a science. Does it matter if they do not understand how birds make nests? How would that knowledge prove or disprove evolution?

Sometimes the proper answer to questions is we don't know yet. But do not make the mistake of conflating not knowing everything with knowing nothing.

 

[YoursTrue]

How do you figure they are "sometimes" wrong when they all agree? Just because they all agree?

Don't you think if all experts agree on some fact or result that it's highly likely to be correct? They ARE experts after all.

So, instead of you speculating, which is meaningless, do you have any evidence of experts agreeing on something important (recently, no more examples from 150 years ago) and were wrong about, and this being a bad pattern of error?




You don't have a 7th grader's knowledge of science. Peer review just replicates a previous experiment to see if the results are the same.


No, educated people respect the process of science, and how there is a portfolio of knowledge that comes from it. You have the typical contempt for science that comes from the bd influence of conservative Christianity. That you have cited the Bible a few times demonstrates you have been negatively influenced. You have an extreme form of bias.


More of your bad faith claims for which you offer no evidence, so we reject it.

Check out Dr. Semmelweis, he was badly treated by his peers before his idea of cleanliness was accepted. It is amazing in today's day and age, also that doctors didn't believe him for quite a while.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's a shame you don't apply the same methodology to reading even a little about evolution.

The origin of life (abiogenesis), by the way, is outside the scope of the theory of evolution. Please don't confuse the two.

I do read about evolution. I have textbooks about it. Statements are made and to be taken in many cases, on faith. You can say that as well about the Bible, however I feel the scales weigh in on the side of the Bible.

 

[cladking]

Check out Dr. Semmelweis, he was badly treated by his peers before his idea of cleanliness was accepted. It is amazing in today's day and age, also that doctors didn't believe him for quite a while.

Until only 20 or 25 years ago a lot of GP's weren't at all fastidious about washing their hands between patients and many people got sick.

Now most of them are pretty careful.

 

[gnostic]

Reading a little about birds today, how do they know how to construct a nest? They don't have to teach their offspring. Rather different from humans constructing something, isn't it?

Sorry what do birds building nests and humans building houses, have anything to do with evolution or with the Bible?

First off, Bible provide no explanations on how to build any of these, by birds or by humans...

Second, constructing a house or a nest, have nothing to do with Evolution.

Evolution is only about biology, about biodiversity over time.

 

[gnostic]

One more time ( about the 12th in this thread alone);

Most change in species occurs immediately after a bottleneck that selects for unusual behavior produced by consciousness as a product of genes and experience. Bottlenecks caused by other agents tend not to produce very dramatic change. Almost all genetic diversity that isn't the result of mutation results from localized bottlenecks.

"Survival of the fittest" by no name at all even exists. Changes that result from "natural selection" are insignificant and random.

Repeating yourself for the 12th times, don’t make your claims any more correct than the first you have stated it, because everything you have claimed about what is or isn’t evolution, are based on your lack of education in biology.

You refuse to learn from your mistakes, you keep just compounding your errors and your ignorance.

You don’t understand what Evolution is saying, and you continue to misunderstand what fitness mean in biological context.

Consciousness don’t direct what traits that genes should pass on future generations. And that another one of conflated fantasy, but this time your ignorance is about consciousness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do read about evolution. I have textbooks about it. Statements are made and to be taken in many cases, on faith. You can say that as well about the Bible, however I feel the scales weigh in on the side of the Bible.

No, nothing is ever to be taken on faith in the sciences. Sometimes an author may assume that the reader has a certain level of education in the subject. That does not mean that it is to be taken on faith.

If you did not know how they knew something that is the time to take a short detour and find out how they knew it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry what do birds building nests and humans building houses, have anything to do with evolution or with the Bible?

First off, Bible provide no explanations on how to build any of these, by birds or by humans...

Second, constructing a house or a nest, have nothing to do with Evolution.

Evolution is only about biology, about biodiversity over time.

Sorry, but it has to do with cognitive ability (thinking), instinct, teaching how to build. We were talking about difference of consciousness. Birds don't have the same cognitive ability that humans do. I actually learned that in biology while being taught evolution and that part I believe!

 

[gnostic]

I do read about evolution. I have textbooks about it. Statements are made and to be taken in many cases, on faith. You can say that as well about the Bible, however I feel the scales weigh in on the side of the Bible.

The Bible isn’t biology treatise, it explain nothing and it teach nothing about biology.

God did it, doesn’t explain human or other animal anatomy. The Bible have no explanations about cells, and all the different types of cells that make up life.

Biology not only explained what they are (anatomy), they also explain how they work or function (physiology).

Plus, no where in Genesis and the rest of Bible, does it ever what “kinds” are.

You say the scale tips in favor of the Bible, but even a nine year old, today, know more about biology than whoever wrote Genesis. You saying this about scale, is nothing more than distorted and exaggerated handwaving that the Bible know more about biology than science.

 

[YoursTrue]

Repeating yourself for the 12th times, don’t make your claims any more correct than the first you have stated it, because everything you have claimed about what is or isn’t evolution, are based on your lack of education in biology.

You refuse to learn from your mistakes, you keep just compounding your errors and your ignorance.

You don’t understand what Evolution is saying, and you continue to misunderstand what fitness mean in biological context.

Consciousness don’t direct what traits that genes should pass on future generations. And that another one of conflated fantasy, but this time your ignorance is about consciousness.

Naturally of course you can believe what you want, but the difference of consciousness between birds and humans is not genetically passed on and transformed. Go prove if you believe otherwise. There's more to imagine that consciousness is passed on by survival of the fittest genetically than there is to believe there is a difference by design from a higher, much higher source who made it so. The reasoning scale favors design, not "survival of the fittest" there.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Bible isn’t biology treatise, it explain nothing and it teach nothing about biology.

God did it, doesn’t explain human or other animal anatomy. The Bible have no explanations about cells, and all the different types of cells that make up life.

Biology not only explained what they are (anatomy), they also explain how they work or function (physiology).

Plus, no where in Genesis and the rest of Bible, does it ever what “kinds” are.

You say the scale tips in favor of the Bible, but even a nine year old, today, know more about biology than whoever wrote Genesis. You saying this about scale, is nothing more than distorted and exaggerated handwaving that the Bible know more about biology than science.

• As far as kinds, birds are not humans. And while it's not a modern textbook, the health laws are fitting about not touching dead bodies. God knew. And related that information to the Israelites. Modern biology and medical procedures"discovered" that law fairly recently.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Bible isn’t biology treatise, it explain nothing and it teach nothing about biology.

God did it, doesn’t explain human or other animal anatomy. The Bible have no explanations about cells, and all the different types of cells that make up life.

Biology not only explained what they are (anatomy), they also explain how they work or function (physiology).

Plus, no where in Genesis and the rest of Bible, does it ever what “kinds” are.

You say the scale tips in favor of the Bible, but even a nine year old, today, know more about biology than whoever wrote Genesis. You saying this about scale, is nothing more than distorted and exaggerated handwaving that the Bible know more about biology than science.

The Bible is not a science textbook. But for those times, it was remarkable. Dr. Semmelweis was ridiculed and harassed by his professional colleagues because he washed his hands and promoted his findings.

 

[gnostic]

Naturally of course you can believe what you want, but the difference of consciousness between birds and humans is not genetically passed on and transformed. Go prove if you believe otherwise. There's more to imagine that consciousness is passed on by survival of the fittest genetically than there is to believe there is a difference by design from a higher, much higher source who made it t so. The reasoning scale favors design, not "survival of the fittest" there.

You are the ones who making claims that are counter to nature and natural processes, now you are claiming it all about “Design”, then as a claimant, you prove it what you are saying Design is correct.

I am not the one going against evidence that support natural phenomena, you are, so don’t shift the burden of proof upon others.

That’s the problems I have encountered with every creationists, they make so many bogus claims, and spect everyone who disagree with them to prove them wrong.

Why don’t you show evidence for Design, YoursTrue?

A biochemist named Michael Behe could never provide evidence for Intelligent Design, so I don’t you will have much luck too.