|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Genetics tells us that it can happen No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
No. Yes. Let's ask the Genetics Society of America about evolution and creationism, shall we?
Genetics and evolution are two very closely interwoven disciplines. In fact, evolution might be summarized as population genetics over time. [...] Without evolutionary theory, we would be forced to completely discard much of what we understand about fields such as genetics, botany, zoology, paleontology, and anthropology. Perhaps they know something you don't. Genetics, for example. I think they know that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes. Let's ask the Genetics Society of America about evolution and creationism, shall we?
Genetics and evolution are two very closely interwoven disciplines. In fact, evolution might be summarized as population genetics over time. [...] Without evolutionary theory, we would be forced to completely discard much of what we understand about fields such as genetics, botany, zoology, paleontology, and anthropology. Perhaps they know something you don't. Genetics, for example. I think they know that. That's the usual statement, the party line, no evidence there, just the usual assertion. In fact population genetics operates in a much shorter time frame (though Pod Mrcaru lizards and Jutland cattle may illustrate the shortest possible), and in millions of years no living thing would still be living. Mutation couldn't possibly keep up with the loss of genetic diversity through normal evolutionary processes, being so rarely beneficial, besides which, as I've shown many times, whatever the source of new genetic material it has to succumb to genetic reduction if new phenotypes are to result, a formula that absolutely defeats the continuation of microevolution beyond the species. Since so much of evolution is just imagined, along the lines of this transitional fossil discussion, nothing has ever been established as a fact, it's just been assumed to be a fact because the theory is believed: Evolution is true, therefore this creature must have evolved into that creature, and for that to be the case this arrangement of bones had to have evolved over millions of years into that arrangement of bones although nothing that is known about how genetics works could have brought that about. I really don't think this is true: "Without evolutionary theory, we would be forced to completely discard much of what we understand about fields such as genetics, botany, zoology, paleontology, and anthropology" except for paleontology of course, but if it is true then they'd be better off without evolutionary theory because it is false. It's a terrible waste of manpower and human intelligence to keep on under the spell of this false theory. ABE: I'm so convinced of this I actually feel bad and sometimes wish it weren't true just because so many nice smart people ARE involved in it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Oh, and one more quotation. It's from you:
I do not claim to be a geneticist or even to have more than the most rudimentary understanding of genetics. In fact population genetics operates in a much shorter time frame (though Pod Mrcaru lizards and Jutland cattle may illustrate the shortest possible), and in millions of years no living thing would still be living. Mutation couldn't possibly keep up with the loss of genetic diversity through normal evolutionary processes, being so rarely beneficial, besides which, as I've shown many times, whatever the source of new genetic material it has to succumb to genetic reduction if new phenotypes are to result, a formula that absolutely defeats the continuation of microevolution beyond the species. But this is just crap you've made up 'cos of being ignorant of genetics.
Since so much of evolution is just imagined, along the lines of this transitional fossil discussion, nothing has ever been established as a fact, it's just been assumed to be a fact because the theory is believed:
Evolution is true, therefore this creature must have evolved into that creature, and for that to be the case this arrangement of bones had to have evolved over millions of years into that arrangement of bones although nothing that is known about how genetics works could have brought that about. But this is just crap you've made up 'cos of being ignorant of genetics, paleontology, evolution, and the scientific method.
I'm so convinced of this I actually feel bad and sometimes wish it weren't true just because so many nice smart people ARE involved in it. And so many dumb jerks on the other side. Truly this is a tragedy. Why couldn't the smart people be right about science and the scientifically illiterate people be wrong about science. That would be both fairer and more plausible. Way more plausible. Way, way more plausible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh, and one more quotation. It's from you:
I do not claim to be a geneticist or even to have more than the most rudimentary understanding of genetics. Thank you for finally posting that after I don't know how many hints and veiled threats about something I supposedly wrote that to you means I should never say a word about any of this. Yes, I've never claimed more than a rudimentary understanding, but of course I claim to understand enough to make the arguments I make. And this is awfully, you know, Ad Hominem of you. What is needed isn't an attack on me personally but some evidence that my claims are wrong. For instance so far nobody has shown how any known genetics operation could get us from a certain arrangement of bones in a reptile to a very different arrangement in a mammal, through such and so many generations of just-so changes in that direction, through an apparently intermediate arrangement of bones in that "transitional" therapsid creature. RAZD claimed dog breeds demonstrate the process but they don't: no changing arrangements of bones from one to another dog breed that I know of. Do you? He also keeps saying that the steps beyond a species are microevolution just like the steps that form breeds within a species, which is quite impossible, except of course by word magic which renames whatever is needed to fit the theory. I wonder if you might be persuaded to give up your endless ad hominems and endless denials of everything I say to offer some kind of explanation of how these things can occur, preferably with examples. You know, actual evidence instead of the endless refrain Evidence, Evidence Evidence, if I say it often enough it will become true.,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
But the definition is wrong, misleading, a fraud, word magic. ... Well you can't stop evolution by rejecting the definition of a word, Faith. You just need to look around you and you can see evolution happening: there is variation in every generation of every species.
... If in fact the new breed is genetically depleted the idea is absolutely ridiculous that it's a "new species" with the implied ability to evolve further. Would you ever consider that it is not full "depleted" yet? Personally I don't see why you get so hung up on this -- it is still reproduction after their own kind, as you assume happened since your purported all expenses paid round the world mega-yacht trip. You claim all living species are the product of that (super hyper-rapid) evolution: why should it end today? Of course in evolutionary talk it is still reproduction within a clade and all new species will always be members of that clade. So other than your weird insistence on the evolution of life, once it left the ark, ending *suddenly* in your lifetime, there is no real difference in the observation that offspring will always be related to and have traits of their parents.
In other words if it's really a dog but you want to say it's not a dog I can't object because biological scientists named it according to what the theory tells them and not according to whether it makes any sense to call a breed a species Scientifically speaking it doesn't matter one whit what you call it -- we just happen to call all living organisms and all past organisms a species and give that species a name as a matter of convenience in talking about them. Nature could care less about what we call them. Scientifically speaking what is important is that life forms nested hierarchies, and when we use cladistics (as is increasingly the case) we say that any offspring of a species in the The only distinction that we make between variety and species is that one (variety) can readily interbreed and the other (species) theoretically can't (altho this appears to be getting somewhat nebulous). But it doesn't really matter what we call it because words don't control what happens. It just matters to US that we are consistent in what we call it ... because words are used to describe what happens in a meaningful way to promote understanding rather than confusion.
It has not been refuted, ... It has.
... I've answered every claim. ... No, you have hand waved and misrepresented your way around the evidence.
... Mutations couldn't make the sort of changes required even if they did produce beneficial changes to any meaningful extent. ... You mean the sort of changes that you imagine is "required" rather than the sort of changes that actually occur.
... Can't happen and I've shown it can't happen. ... Except that you haven't, because ... it does happen and has happened and has been observed happening. Evolution and speciation have been observed, and that is all.that.is.necessary. ... The reality is that the whole idea of speciation and increased genetic diversity due to mutation ... Is an actually observed phenomena. It is a fact.
... Personal opinion is not evidence. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Please do not redefine existing terms. Species already has a definition. Accepting the definition is not the same as accepting that new species can form from existing species.
Please do not make empty arguments such as calling something an illusion or a fraud or mental juggling and so forth. It's just a way of ignoring evidence and arguments that people are then forced to repeat. Please do not claim you've already answered or shown or proved something. Answering or showing or proving something to your own satisfaction means nothing. You have to do it to other people's satisfaction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If I can't accept your assessment or comply with your request, what do you suggest?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Faith writes: If I can't accept your assessment or comply with your request, what do you suggest? The requests boil down to debating in good faith. Don't play games with word definitions. Don't waste people's time by responding to evidence and argument with unsupported aspersions, or by claiming that you've already proved something when everyone knows that in earlier discussions you convinced no one. You should seek to respond to evidence and argument with your own evidence and argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
If I can't accept your assessment or comply with your request, what do you suggest?
I'm hesitant to to go off-topic and address this question, but how do you expect to have a meaningful discussion if you cannot abide established definitions? My guess is that you should expect continued ridicule and multiple suspensions, so don't complain when that happens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I've answered the only offering of evidence from the other side on this thread with reasoned argument. There has been only that evidence: RAZD's claim that dog breeds illustrate the genetic situation with transitional fossils. They don't, as I've made clear. No other evidence has been offered besides the apparent transitional sequence itself.
Dr. A has said nothing substantive at all. When I say a particular idea is just mental juggling or the like, I believe I have just shown how it is so it isn't just an empty statement. That's a substantive argument, I SHOW how it's purely imaginative. But as I said back upthread, if you rule against my objection to the term "new species" perhaps all I can do is leave the thread whether I want to or not. Not a threat and not something I could change my mind about if it's really the only option.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: No. I have, for instance seen no substantive argument against the fossil evidence for the "reptile"-mammal transition, for instance.
quote: No. In fact outright lying would be a more accurate description
quote: If you can't make your case without making ridiculous false accusations then something is badly wrong with your position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
This should have been part of my previous post:
I did answer the claim that dog breeds illustrate the same transitional situation as the fossils, saying that there is no case I know of where bones have been rearranged to get from one breed to the next. Nobody has answered this. It's been stated many times that it is genetically possible to get such a rearrangement of bones but nobody has given any evidence of this. I don't think it is, I'm sure it isn't. And here's where I point out that the sequence of changes in the fossil bones that would have to evolve between the reptile and the mammal is purely imagined. This is a substantive argument against the ToE, that it really is mostly mental, with very little actual evidence. So to my mind the next task on this thread is for someone to give evidence that the necessary rearrangement of bones to show an evolutionary connection between those fossils is really genetically possible and not just assumed and imagined. But I'm prepared to be ruled out of order. I'll be away for a few hours now I think. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: The sequence, of course, has to be based on the actual bone structures, so to call it "purely imagined" is either irrelevant or false. Even worse the *evidence* is the fossils which correspond to stages in the transition. Ignoring dramatic evidence and implying that it does not exist is hardly honest.
quote: RAZD has already done so, although it is not actually necessary. That is the pint of referring to the variation in dogs, although you clearly missed the point. And, I will add, this is an objection based on ignorance. You offer no reason to think that the changes are nor possible at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
,,, When I say a particular idea is just mental juggling or the like, I believe I have just shown how it is so it isn't just an empty statement. That's a substantive argument, I SHOW how it's purely imaginative.
I have not participated in this thread, but it appears to be going like most of your threads. However, I did read your comment that, ' ... old ages are simply out of the question.' No explanation, no reasoning, ... just a comment as if to say that, 'this is a foregone conclusion, so I can disregard it and everyone should accept the rest of my story'. It's meaningless, and a bit disrespectful.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024