Why is evolution even still a debate?

[cladking]

It took about 2 million years, for example, just to get from homo habilis to us.

But then homo habilis is a different species. Homo omnisciencis has existed a mere 4000 years and arose as the dust from the "tower of babel" was still settling.

There are steps to evolution not an escalator.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But then homo habilis is a different species. Homo omnisciencis has existed a mere 4000 years and arose as the dust from the "tower of babel" was still settling.

There are steps to evolution not an escalator.

What the bloody hell is "homo omnisciencis"?
And, yes, homo habilis was a different species, but they are of the same genus. And we have many "stairway steps" with fossils, and eventually we see no more h. habilis but we find other hominids for awhile, then we find some others, and about 200,000 years ago homo sapiens emerged. We don't find us before that time.
And even Da Vinci noticed these "steps" in tue fossil record centuries ago.

 

[cladking]

and about 200,000 years ago homo sapiens emerged.

But humans are first encountered only some 40,000 years ago according to anthropologists; according to physical evidence.

And even Da Vinci noticed these "steps" in tue fossil record centuries ago.

He had no means to determine if the changes were sudden or gradual. We do and all observed change is sudden.

Herein lies my point.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But humans are first encountered only some 40,000 years ago according to anthropologists; according to physical evidence.

Not true.
The Science Behind the Discovery of the Oldest Homo Sapien | Science| Smithsonian Magazine

He had no means to determine if the changes were sudden or gradual. We do and all observed change is sudden.

He did note it appears the fossils appear in gradual changes or steps. He made these observations during his extensive geological research, cartography, and digging canals.

 

[Valjean]

You have to ask the scientism cultists, here, that question. Because they seem to be convinced that science is the fountain of Truth, not of mere relatively functional theories. And they are so convinced of this that they cannot allow for ANY skepticism, whatever. In their mind, science says the theory of evolution is The Truth. End of discussion.

Science is the best and most productive investigative and verification method man has ever developed. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's the current gold standard.
If you have anything better, please enlighten us.

 

[Valjean]

In the previous post you couldn't be bothered to even say what evidence supports "Evolution" and called me insane and in this you invented a response to other words.

Please stop it. The evidence has been presented to you, and you either ignore it or refuse to look at it. I'd always assumed that the subject was common knowledge, and taught to every schoolchild. Apparently I was wrong.

Are you sure your faith in Evolution is unshakeable?

Inasmuch as it's evidence based and not faith, it's easily shakeable, with just some contrary evidence.

 

[Valjean]

Experts have all the answers. Homo omnisciencis.

Experts have the best evidenced answers. That's why they're experts.

 

[Valjean]

Jeesh!!! You won't name one and you you want me to specify one after naming them all.

Look at the work done in neuroscience and responses to stimuli. Look at the work done with slime molds and communicating with animals.

I am talking about the interpretation of every single observation and experiment ever done. It is my contention they all singly and collectively support and entirely different paradigm. My job isn't to show how every single one of these supports my argument, YOUR job is to find one single experiment that contradicts my interpretation. Your job is to find evidence and logic that says I am wrong.

We haven't even started this conversation because believers in science refuse to even recognize anything I'm saying. They are too busy insulting and demeaning those with whom they disagree.

We can't even figure out your paradigm, much less your interpretation.
As for evidence of evolution, please stop pretending you're unaware of it. Noöne can be so obtuse.

cladking said: ↑
NAME ONE!!!

Didn't I mention Eohippus?

...And that is your problem but it is also what led you astray. You assumed that fossils show a gradual change that doesn't exist.

Yet they do....[/quote]

 

[F1fan]

"Scholarship" by definition is building on the work of those who came before.

It's impossible to build on the "theory of evolution" because it is wrong.

OK, show the work that demonstrates your claim is true. I've seen no news that you are correct, so I am going to treat your claim as false by default until you demonstrate it is true.

And please show us your level of expertise to challenge experts in biology. Are you a Ph.D. from an excellent university? Which one is it?

 

[F1fan]

But then homo habilis is a different species. Homo omnisciencis has existed a mere 4000 years and arose as the dust from the "tower of babel" was still settling.

There are steps to evolution not an escalator.

Sure, any imaginary species can be said to have existed from any arbitrary time in history.

 

[cladking]

Not true.
The Science Behind the Discovery of the Oldest Homo Sapien | Science| Smithsonian Magazine

From your own source;

"And of course, we should not forget that it is the archaeological record that is identifying when we started to make art, adorn our bodies with jewellery, make sophisticated tools and access a diverse range of plant and animal resources. "

He did note it appears the fossils appear in gradual changes or steps. He made these observations during his extensive geological research, cartography, and digging canals.

He had no means to date anything so no means of knowing if there was gradual or sudden change.

 

[cladking]

Please stop it. The evidence has been presented to you, and you either ignore it or refuse to look at it. I'd always assumed that the subject was common knowledge, and taught to every schoolchild. Apparently I was wrong.

Anyone who doesn't agree is ignorant.

Homo omnisciencis.

Experts have the best evidenced answers. That's why they're experts.

So now your suggesting experts hove proprietary evidence and their own experiments they share only with Peers!!!!

Didn't I mention Eohippus?

You already pictured three sudden changes did you not?

 

[cladking]

OK, show the work that demonstrates your claim is true. I've seen no news that you are correct, so I am going to treat your claim as false by default until you demonstrate it is true.

And please show us your level of expertise to challenge experts in biology. Are you a Ph.D. from an excellent university? Which one is it?

You should revue this exchange. You've essentially proven I am wrong by definition because I don't agree with experts.

Homo omnisciencis.

 

[F1fan]

You should revue this exchange. You've essentially proven I am wrong by definition because I don't agree with experts.

I've followed along the whole thread. You consistently make claims that are inconsistent with what experts find and report, and you offer no substance to your claims, nor offer any expertise you have earned from a university and from work as a biologist. So I'm curious why you think we will take your word over experts.

Homo omnisciencis.

Not a valid species.

 

[ppp]

You should revue this exchange. You've essentially proven I am wrong by definition because I don't agree with experts.

Homo omnisciencis.

The very first thing he asked you to do was to show your work you never do that. Which means that even if you happen to say something that aligns with reality, it is Just Pure Luck. The proverbial broken clock being right twice a day.

Show your work, @cladking.

 

[Audie]

But then homo habilis is a different species. Homo omnisciencis has existed a mere 4000 years and arose as the dust from the "tower of babel" was still settling.

There are steps to evolution not an escalator.

H. omnisciens arose from someone's imagination.

 

[cladking]

Not a valid species.

Smoetimes I think the exact same thing but I'm an optimist at heart and we all need to just keep trying to have fun and make the world a better place.

It's a great life if you don't weaken.

 

[cladking]

You consistently make claims that are inconsistent with what experts find and report, and you offer no substance to your claims, nor offer any expertise you have earned from a university and from work as a biologist.

When I present evidence it is dismissed. People believe in science and "science" has said that species change gradually through survival of the fittest. Why even listen to evidence when you have the answers.

nor offer any expertise you have earned from a university and from work as a biologist.

[sigh]Expertise is irrelevant. The opinion of Peers is still only opinion. repeatability and quality of experiment and logic will prevail whether I am right or wrong. Meanwhile science has always changed one funeral at a time (much like religion).[/sigh]

 

[cladking]

Show your work, @cladking.

All observed change in all life at all levels is sudden.

There is no experimental evidence that shows gradual change in any life at any level.

 

[F1fan]

H. omnisciens arose from someone's imagination.

And not God's.