Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9041 total)
81 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 78 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 885,913 Year: 3,559/14,102 Month: 179/321 Week: 39/59 Day: 0/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exposing the evolution theory. Part 1
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2519
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 7 of 41 (844343)
11-28-2018 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Porkncheese
11-27-2018 9:39 PM


Porkncheese writes:

With so many facts disputing the naturalistic theory I’ve decided to lay out the biggest ones individually.

I had never used naturalistic theory before, so I googled it and the 1st 3 hits were this thread. I assume you decided to to use that term because you picked it up from some creationist or another and wanted some all inclusive Big Bang to the Theory of Evolution target.

I will not spend any time defending naturalistic theory because it is not a concept I spent any of my scientific career thinking about and it certainly is not a subject I have heard colleagues discussing at conferences or in the literature.

Porkncheese writes:

As this is presented to public school students as a fact Im going to use the higher scientific standards of evidence which is used in the applied sciences where evidence has to be 100% accurate.

Do you have some examples of evidence that is 100% accurate?

When you say higher scientific standards of evidence could you explain what you mean?

What are higher scientific standards of evidence and what are they higher than?

Are these higher standards listed in a "standards of evidence handbook"?

Oh, and do you have a list of what you call applied sciences?

Porkncheese writes:

A false representation of an evolutionary tree that would be typically presented as factual to young school kids.

I'm guessing you mean kids 8-10 years old. Do you have a source for this diagram? I agree it is a pretty crappy representation of the evolution of animal life as understood in biology today.

That's all I have time for right now.

Edited by Tanypteryx, : spelling


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Porkncheese, posted 11-27-2018 9:39 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2519
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 9 of 41 (844354)
11-28-2018 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Porkncheese
11-27-2018 9:39 PM


Porkncheese writes:

Then all of the sudden, 542 million years ago, vast quantities of complex creatures emerged without any of the evolutionary precursors demanded from Darwin’s theory.

Sudden is hardly an accurate description for events that took place over a period of 30-50 million years.

"Without any of the evolutionary precursors demanded from Darwin’s theory" is simply not the case in 2018. Numerous fossils of ancestral species to many Cambrian species have been discovered and more are being found as new fossil bearing formations are discovered.

I don't know about "demanded from Darwin's theory", but the modern Theory of Evolution predicts that ancestors of Cambrian fossil species existed and that some may have left fossils. This prediction has turned out to be true as more Precambrian fossils are being found.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Porkncheese, posted 11-27-2018 9:39 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2519
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


(2)
Message 11 of 41 (844381)
11-29-2018 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Porkncheese
11-27-2018 9:39 PM


Porkncheese writes:

Advanced life forms from the Cambrian era were discovered all around the world.

What do you mean by advanced? Do you have some examples?

Advanced compared to what?

All around the world implies that they are found everywhere, but actually they are only found in a few scattered localities around the planet. Only a very small percentage of exposed Cambrian rocks contain fossils from the early Cambrian, such as those found in the Burgess Shales.

ABE: Minnemooseus pointed out an error in my timing for the Burgess Shales Message 12

quote:
I believe, however, that the Burgess Shale is actually middle Cambrian (per Wikipedia- Cambrian=541 to 485.4 mya (million years ago); Burgess Shale=508 mya; I also seem to recall your cite site saying the Burgess was 40 million years into the Cambrian).

Porkncheese writes:

However the findings only served to refute Darwin’s theory as there was no evolutionary species found for the Cambrian animals.

What? What is your definition of evolutionary species?

Species that evolved?

Species that are evolving?

Species that will evolve?

Do you mean transitional species?

Porkncheese writes:

It is clear that the fossil record does not support Darwin’s theory of a common ancestor but in fact it undoubtedly refutes it.

Since it is clear to you I assume you can support this.

Porkncheese writes:

Yet the Cambrian explosion is not even mentioned in many text books

Well, neither is E=MC^2. Scientists have been complaining about the quality of information in science and math textbooks for decades. Most science textbooks for grades 7-12 in the U.S. are not written by scientists.

If you are trying to blame science for the piss poor quality of primary and high school texts you don't know what you are talking about.

If you want to learn about science there are plenty of good books, popular, as well as college texts, all the way to highly technical books by specialists.

Porkncheese writes:

and when it is mentioned it is not presented as evidence against Darwin’s theory but instead as an event that requires no further justification.

Well, that would be because it is not evidence against Darwin's theory. Textbooks may be crappy, but you wouldn't want them to put in clear lies about science, would you?

I have no idea what you mean by "an event that requires no further justification."

Porkncheese writes:

Similar situations also occur throughout time including the period after the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. This is where many modern animals, including primates, appear without any evolutionary evidence.

Sadly, you have been completely misinformed. I hope it wasn't by one of those crappy high school texbooks, but there have been many excellent books written about life during the Cretaceous and after the extinction event.

The animals that survived the extinction event and that left descendants and fossils have been studied intently and scientists know a lot about them.

Porkncheese writes:

From observing the fossil data of the pre Cambrian period we should find evidence of evolution

Yep, and we do.

Porkncheese writes:

and a common ancestor as predicted by Darwin.

Well, Darwin didn't get everything correct, but the best thing about science, it builds on what we learned in the past, and tries to correct mistakes in the past.

We realized that it would probably be impossible to look at a fossil of a single celled common ancestor and determine if it was an ancestor or not.

Recently, molecular analysis from living organisms has started to give us data on how they are related. At the same time this may guide us in describing what characters the common ancestor had.

Porkncheese writes:

We find no such evidence therefore, as Darwin himself knew, the theory is falsified.

As I said earlier, you are sadly misinformed. We have abundant evidence of evolution in the past and in the present. The Theory of Evolution itself has evolved a lot in the almost 160 years since Origin of Species and you are going to have to study the modern theory if you want to falsify it.

Porkncheese writes:

It also fails both criminal and civil legal standards of evidence.

Well, sadly for you, you forgot that you need to present valid evidence to support a case for an alternate theory that explains life better than the Theory of Evolution.

All you did was bumble an attempt to poke holes in a theory that is 160 years out of date. The only way you're going to succeed is with a lot of study.

Edited by Tanypteryx, : Correct dates of Burgess Shales

Edited by Tanypteryx, : spelleing


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Porkncheese, posted 11-27-2018 9:39 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-29-2018 2:19 AM Tanypteryx has responded

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2519
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 13 of 41 (844387)
11-29-2018 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Minnemooseus
11-29-2018 2:19 AM


Re: Burgess Shale etc.
Thanks for the information. Like you said tired....

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-29-2018 2:19 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2519
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 29 of 41 (844425)
11-29-2018 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Porkncheese
11-29-2018 12:05 PM


Re: Avoidance of the issue.
It sure would be nice if you used the features of this forum to identify the posts you are referring to...

So far only defensive tactics and false accusations to avoid explaining the evidence of the missing fossils.

Well, maybe you think you provided evidence of missing fossils, but we didn't see it. You asserting that there are missing fossils is not evidence.

Im not being drawn into it. I just record these types of arguments as i will tally them up at the end of it all to reflect the attitude and response to ToE being questioned.

I didn't see the ToE being questioned but rather your mistaken version of ToE. I saw you making false assertions about the fossil record. You refer to the fossil record from 150 years ago, not the state of our knowledge today.

And to people that are incapable of using internet this is the definition of naturalism.

No one asked for a definition of naturalism. We asked why you are using naturalistic theory and what you think it means.

I couldn't imagine stopping to ask someone a definition when its so easily obtained. Obviously a defensive tactic.

Yeah, we know, but this is a science forum and we want to know what the fuck YOU mean when you use certain words.

Using definitions for words that are not the way science defines them is an obvious creationist defensive tactic that we are very familiar with here at EvC.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Porkncheese, posted 11-29-2018 12:05 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2519
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 41 of 41 (844475)
11-30-2018 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by caffeine
11-30-2018 4:34 PM


Re: Looks fine to me
This one below is a) more in line with modern hypotheses, b) more detailed and c) available as a jigsaw puzzle, so it wins on all fronts.

Nice one. It has fossil/extinct groups also.

I also like this more detailed "tree" from evogeneao.com, they even have an interactive tree of life. And they sell tshirts, I have the dragonfly one.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by caffeine, posted 11-30-2018 4:34 PM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021