Bolder-dash's very own little thread

But we are able to do that, and have. Evolution generates new body plans by the same mechanisms it generates everything else; random mutation and natural selections. New body plans are generated by small, heritable changes to the old ones that accrue over time.That's why the fossil record shows a continuous pattern of transitional forms between taxa. That's why the modern world still shows a continuous pattern of transitional forms, from microorganisms, to colonial microorganisms, to multicellular invertebrates, to part-time chordates, to ocean-dwelling vertebrates, to cold-blooded land vertebrates, to warm-blooded vertibrates, to primates, to hominids, to humans.There are no truly de novo body plans in evolutionary history. The sort of saltational change you may have in mind would be evidence against evolution, not in favor of it. Because here at EvC we're expected to support our arguments with references. Those "magic books" are actually collegiate textbooks on the relevant subjects, suited for instruction and considered proof in any court of law.If you don't care to look at the references, you can hardly accuse us of not providing evidence. We can lead you to water but nobody can make you drink. You don't know any biology. The reason I know this is because biology is taught from textbooks, and you refuse to read books.

There is more evidence for the theory of evolution than for any other scientific theory. More than for Newton's theory of universal gravity, more than for Einstein's general relativity, more than for quantum mechanics.There is more evidence for the theory of evolution than there is in support of any medical diagnosis that any doctor has ever made. There is more evidence for evolution than there is for any crime for which anyone has ever been convicted at any trial in any country. It is only out of complete ignorance of biology that you would be able to describe any change in bacteria as "simple."But, yes, the body of evidence extends beyond changes in bacteria. There's about 3 million hits for that search, that should get you started.

There is no name for it, because it's not a fallacy to provide your opponent with references to sources. What is fallacious is pretending that your opponent didn't source his arguments because he didn't open the book and read them to you by your bedside. Fossils are not "evolutionary change." Fossils do not ever change, they're made of stone - mineralized bone - and have been dead for millions of years, in some cases.No fossil is ever going to engage in "evolutionary change" right before our eyes. No individual organism is going to, either. Evolution is something that happens to species, to populations, not to individuals. Everybody who didn't get their knowledge of biology from the "X-Men" movies knows that. We've observed random mutations make every kind of change to DNA that it's possible to make. DNA can be added to, can be subtracted from, can be re-arranged. That's it; that's all you can do with DNA. And we have observations from the lab that prove that all three of those types of changes can be the result of random mutations.So we know that random mutation is a potential source for any kind of heritable, genetic change, and those are the only sorts of changes that represent evolution of populations. The scientific theory of evolution has an extraordinary amount of proof, far more than for any other scientific theory.

And we observe that all that happens. And then natural selection weeds out the detrimental mutations and selects for the advantageous ones. And we observe that happen, too.

Those events would disprove evolution, not be evidence in favor of it. On the other hand, the living world contains examples of a continuum of eyes ranging from simple eye spots to human-style backwards-retina "just good enough" camera eyes to the retinas-forward, optimum design found in cephlopods. I don't believe you've ever in your life seen a scientific study. What was the last one you read? Be specific. I'm asking for title, authors, and the volume and page of the journal in which it appeared.

A small change to a bog-standard sebaceous gland.

Oh, what is the exact change? A mutation in developmental genes, most likely. Changes to body plan are usually the result of changes to the program of cell development and proliferation that occurs pre-natally.

They're in your DNA, where they've always been. Saltational change is evidence against evolution, not evidence in favor of it. Biological function emerges from small changes to body plan, not enormous changes all at once like the sudden emergence of poison glands in primates.Everybody who didn't get their biology education from "X-Men" knows this. Not at all. In fact there are dozens of examples: Are Mutations Harmful?Every biological trait in every organism in every species is the result of mutation. That's a countless number of examples of beneficial mutations. An effectively infinite amount.

Gene duplication - Wikipedia

That's a delightful work of fiction you've created, but why not just admit that you know nothing at all about me and address my points? So show me the ones you think I don't know about. Like I said - there aren't that many so-called "psychic studies" in the first place. The "paranormal" has long since been relegated to cranks and hucksters since study after study fails to find any defensible example of paranormal powers.If there's all this evidence for "non-material" stuff then you shouldn't have any trouble providing some of it, and putting me in my place. But instead you're forced to write these insipid little biographies that violate the forum guidelines:

quote:

---

Argue the position, not the person.

---

I'm actually a 30-year-old married man, and maybe the reason that I seem like a know-it-all to you is because you know so very little about the world and its function. Certainly the steady array of biological ignorance you've spat all over this forum testifies to that. And now we find out that your credulity truly knows no bounds, and you'll swallow any old hokum at all - psychic surgery, out-of-body experiences, remote viewing - that you think will let you "stick it" to us awful ol' materialists.That's fine. Prove to me that you're the one possessed of a mind open to all the evidence, and go out and find some for psychic powers. For out-of-body experiences. Prove to me you're not just running off with your tail between your legs when I showed up at your little battle of wits with a lot more armament than you were prepared to defend against. Of course not - because you're fundamentally someone who fears and hates knowledge. An intellectual coward.

Fossilization is a rare occurrence, and generally all that fossilizes is the skeleton, so just from that you're unlikely to see very many mutations in the fossil record, and none at all that occurred primarily in the soft body tissues that don't fossilize.The place to look for the record of mutations is in the DNA. And that's where they're found, by the millions.

Hardly any, for the reasons I've already described. No, let's start with the ones you know about. What was the last scientific study you read? Be specific.What is the evidence of non-materialism to which you keep referring? Be specific. You don't seem prepared to have any discussion at all. The only thing you seem prepared to do is trash scientists you don't understand and call people names. What evidence did those people produce? Parnia's study on OBE's has released no data at all. Sheldrakes "morphic resonance" was disproved by his own experiments.If even these guys who "devote their lives" to these subjects can't find the evidence, why should I believe there is any? Assume my mind is open. Show me the evidence.

We're not dumb. You're "giving up on me" because I make points you can't refute and can barely understand (and frequently don't.)You don't have the science background to interpret the vast majority of evidence being presented to you, you've made that obvious.

Contrary to your lie, here, I think you'll find that I did reply, and that you have not addressed the reply.It's actually you who had no comeback.