|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Par for the course.....fact is there are genuine problems with evo theory and they have never been refuted despite evos claiming they have, and that's one major reason evos object to even allowing students to hear criticism of Darwinism. They DON'T WANT students and people to think critically of their theory because if they did, they would have absolutely no objections to including criticisms of Darwinism when the subject is presented, as presenting criticism helps develop critical thinking on a subject. Duh!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Hmmmm.....I love it how you guys routinely demand I post off-topic stuff and then someone conveniently complains if I do, knowing there is a good chance I will be banned. Sorry but no-go. Let me add I do not consider your "challenge" sincere since you can post on any of my many threads or start topics on them. Check out the threads in Showcase and post a topic, for example. Please note that outside of moderator control (Showcase) few were willing to debate these issues there......don't know if you were around, but that fact indicates it's not anti-evos that don't rise to the challenge.
You can peruse my many threads and comments here for some of the major problems with evo theory. If you take issue with one of them, please either post on that thread or start a new one if it has been closed. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Bottom line is I've been told rules-breaking will result in permanent banning. Just because one moderator thinks digressing into several topics is somehow on-topic does not mean another moderator would not consider it blatantly moving the thread off-topic into multiple other discussions. It's hard to see how it would not do that, in fact,especially as the "challenge" was clearly not to list them but to list them so they could be debated. Moreover, it's blatantly insulting to suggest that somehow I have not offered this elsewhere and repeatedly on this forum.
I will list a few examples in order to comply with nosy's request though not sure what the top 3 are. 1. The NeoDarwinian hypothesis of genetic evolution roughly coorrelating morphological evolution by natural selection selecting for the beneficial traits arsing from random mutation conflicts with the evidence in an overwhelming manner. 2. Microevolution or NeoDarwinian processes of natural selection work against originating higher taxa by limiting genetic diversity within populations, not expanding it, in general and so is actually evidence against ToE, not evidence for it, as what we have are dead-ends, not examples of "evolution" in action. This error is compounded by the fallacious and deceptive circular logic of evos of defining evolution as heritable change and as ToE and so claim since heritable change has been observed, ToE has been observed when the exact opposite is the case. 3. The fossil record conclusively demonstrates gradualistic evo theories including PE are wrong. These are not necessarily the top 3, just some that come to mind....maybe top 3. I am sure there are threads on all of these. In conclusion, I just want to state any suggestions of ignorance and cowardice are blatant rules-violations and an obvious slander easily refuted by the numerous posts anyone can view here. Edited by randman, : No reason given. Edited by randman, : No reason given. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Major weakness in evo theory is the mechanism proposed. First, it works against the origin of higher taxa by limiting genetic diversity, and if you disagree with that, one must at least admit that evos have never done in any real studies to verify their claims as they have not shown positive, beneficial mutational rates are sufficient to outweigh the diminishing of genetic diversity by natural selection and subspeciation.
Increasingly the mechanism proposed by NeoDarwinians doesn't match the facts. Evos propose a gradual increase in genetic diversity matching roughly the evolution of morphological novelty. There may be grounds for some exceptions in a limited manner, but we should see the evolution of the genome matching increased morphological complexity but we see the opposite. Assuming common descent just for sake of discussion, we see the most simple organisms for the common metazoan ancestor and ancestor of all plants and animals as likely being genetically more complex than most of the animal lineages following so that evolution, assuming it occured, largely occured via a loss of genes rather than a slow, accumulation of them. There are many other weaknesses such as the fact the fossil record doesn't actually show gradual transitions. The evo claim/excuse is "fossil rarity" but there are no studies substantiating that claim. Moreover, even the phylogenic trees arranged by evos don't support the notion of Darwinian evolution though they can be used to support some sort of evolution. If common descent were true, they appear to show a pulsed-like phased delineated evolution, which fits by the way with the idea the genetic material for evolving forms existed from one of the earliest or perhaps a few early simple forms. Not that I agree with front-loading, but it appears a stronger hypothesis than Darwinism. I also think there are facts such as red blood cells in dinosaur bones that are very troubling for evo concepts of dating since it is inconceivable that organic molecules would routinely stay intact for millions of years. Overall though, the biggest weakness of evo theory is reliance on simplistic formulas rather than comprehensive and qualitative analysis of data. Edited by randman, : No reason given. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
How many times have they not been found when looked for is a better question. They found red blood cells and since they started looking, they have found more. The exact number is probably unknown.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
“The cells which gave rise to plants and animals had more types of genes available to them than are presently found in either plants or animals,” explains William Loomis, a professor of biology at UCSD... William Loomis genes Science Daily - Google Search You can find more but it's not clear how far we can digress debating this point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I suggest you shorten your posts and cut to the point if you want me to read it. Several paragraphs of fluff, and that's putting it better than I really think, is not worth wading through to get to your points.
Moreover, the way this forum works, you don't get to range willy-nilly over a wide range of topics in-depth but you have to start a new thread for each one. I suggest you do that so further discussion can go forward. Additionally, the part I did read.....let me just say there are numerous, valid arguments against NeoDarwinism. Another besides those 3 is the general characterization and history by evos of exaggerated and even false claims concerning data and logic. Lastly, linking to TalkOrigins does not exactly show you've considered these issues and from my perspective hurts your credibility. Moreover, merely providing a TalkOrigins link and saying you are wrong is not a rational argument. Merely saying "you are wrong" does not cut it and shows you have no factual retort and possibly no understanding of your critic's position. Try a little harder next time.... Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Hmmm.....are you under the impression he has actually posted a factual retort to anything I have posted?
How sad for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Yea, I am a real dodger and weaver.....you can tell that from the voluminous thread count and posts made here and elsewhere....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Imo, a lack of evidence or contradictory evidence is a weakness of the theory in the context here. In terms of what is illegal, it must strike you as well as it does me to hear that a mere scientific idea is "illegal."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I read them after my post and saw absolutely no rebuttal. Can you please, in your own words, try to explain where you think you have refuted something?
Keep in mind links to Talkorigins are not rebuttals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
More words from you with no actual substance. It's amazing you typed so much and said so little related to the subject.
Can you explain in your own words exactly how you think you have refuted my points? It may be helpful to show that you actually understand my points first so you don't waste time arguing with a straw man fantasy of your own creation. Once again, keep in mind links to Talkorigins are not rebuttals. If you think something is relevant in a link, please state in your own words what you think that is, and then linking is acceptable. Bare links don't really deserve the time of day if you are not going to do that. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Uh huh.....care to detail one thing he posted that rebutts any of my points?
You can't do it because he said nothing basically but garbage, not one single factual response.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Note erased my post after it was posted once I saw admin's comment not to respond.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Uh huh.....so outlawing ideas as illegal seems fine with you, eh?
This is relevant for this thread because it's apparent one side wants to teach students to think critically of evolution by presenting the arguments against it, and another side wants that to be illegal.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024