Another Try At Examining Alleged Evidence For The Darwinian Process

JonFromMinnesota · Oct 9, 2015

justlookinla said:
I started with your point A in post #1.

You didn't address anything.

justlookinla said:
Are you going to address your baseless claims that the links contain evidence for the how/process of pine trees and humans being produced from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago? Will you please support that claim with actual content, actual references within a link?

I already have.

1. How? is the question.
2. Genetic mutation & natural selection is the hypothesis
3. Comparative anatomy, embryology, DNA & Genetics, the fossil record is the evidence laid out that confirms the hypothesis and answers the "How"? question.

The next step is for you to address the evidence. Refer to post #511 of the closed thread. Start anywhere you'd like.

whois · Oct 9, 2015

JonFromMinnesota said:
. . . , the fossil record is the evidence laid out that confirms the hypothesis and answers the "How"? question.

The next step is for you to address the evidence. Refer to post #511 of the closed thread. Start anywhere you'd like.

not according to eldridge.
see upload.

ecco · Oct 9, 2015

mickiio said:
Actually it doesn't have to be taken on faith, although I do have Faith in God. Macroevolution goes against Laws of sciences in Physics like the Law of Cause and Effect , against the II Law of Thermodynamics, and probabilities too.
Oh I have no problems with science! I just prefer what is verifiable, and testable. I prefer GOOD science.

ecco said: ↑

I posted this earlier (post #55) but I'll try again...
A. You do not believe in macro-evolution.
B. Your religious beliefs include "god created all life on earth".

If both A. and B. are correct, you are more evidence attesting to the validity of my post.

If B. is not correct, then please tell your concept of how humans came to be.

mickiio said:
I can verify that. If you prefer to believe you came from electrified mud and monkeys over billions and billions of years (because you NEED those years to take care of the many problems you have with that theory) it's your choice.

But you still did not address my question.

Also see my post #96

justlookinla · Oct 9, 2015

JonFromMinnesota said:
You didn't address anything.

From post #1.....

This was my response to the post claiming the alleged evidence....

I'm going to take it step by step to make sure we adequately cover everything. Starting with your 3 points...

"1. Make an observation- It appears that the diversity of life is related.

2. Ask a question (s)- Is all life on earth related? If so, HOW did this happen?

3. Make a hypothesis- All living things on earth are related. This is a process of evolution by random mutations and natural selection."
You've begun at the outset to once again make this about common ancestry. "Related" and "all living things on earth are related" isn't the issue, as I've pointed out probably hundreds of times now.

Now, your next claim in #3...."This is a process of evolution by random mutations and natural selection." This is the issue. You made a claim that the process which created all life we observe today, pine trees and humans, snails and elephants are the result of "random mutations and natural selection".

Now, taking your first point and lets see if it offers the evidence, based on the scientific method, for your claim.

"A. Comparative anatomy conclusion- "Organisms that are closely related to one another share many anatomical similarities"http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IIBcomparative.shtml"
Point out in your statement where the evidence is offered, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process (mutation and natural selection?) which produced all life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long ago.

And again...and again...and again...I'm not asking about common ancestry, about relatedness, I'm asking about the HOW, the process itself. When you identify the process, based on evidence, based on the scientific method in A, we'll examine B.

I already have.

Which link was it? What was the reference to the content in the link? Post number, please.

1. How? is the question.
2. Genetic mutation & natural selection is the hypothesis
3. Comparative anatomy, embryology, DNA & Genetics, the fossil record is the evidence laid out that confirms the hypothesis and answers the "How"? question.

Just a personal empty claim with no references to experimentation based on the scientific method which offers evdience which can be examined. Baseless words.

The next step is for you to address the evidence. Refer to post #511 of the closed thread. Start anywhere you'd like.

I have. See above, I started with your point A.

When are you going to actually offer references evidence contained in the links you gave? So far, you've evaded offering just one of your links and referencing the alleged evidence in the link. You pick it.

JonFromMinnesota · Oct 9, 2015

justlookinla said:
From post #1.....

You've begun at the outset to once again make this about common ancestry. "Related" and "all living things on earth are related" isn't the issue, as I've pointed out probably hundreds of times now.

You asked the question "How?". The answer to that question is genetic mutations and natural selection. If this answer is correct, then common ancestry will be evidence that the answer of genetic mutations and natural selection is accurate. "All living things on earth are related" is very much part of the conversation.

justlookinla said:
"A. Comparative anatomy conclusion- "Organisms that are closely related to one another share many anatomical similarities"http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IIBcomparative.shtml"

Point out in your statement where the evidence is offered, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process (mutation and natural selection?) which produced all life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long ago.

This is not addressing comparative anatomy in the least bit.
Answer me this question: Are you asking how genetic mutations and natural selection exist? It's a natural process. One that you have agreed exists.

If you're asking how genetic mutations and natural selection gave rise to the diversity of all life on earth, the evidence has been presented to you and you should start addressing it.

justlookinla said:
Which link was it? What was the reference to the content in the link? Post number, please.

There are several links and quotations pulled form those links in post #511 in the closed thread.

Now that we have established that genetic mutations and natural selection are a natural process, one you have agreed exists, we can now move on to the evidence that has been presented. If you'd like to start over with comparative anatomy, feel free to do so or you can move on to point B.

ecco · Oct 9, 2015

justlookinla said:
And I disagree with that. If macro-evolution was based on real science as is micro-evolution, I would have to accept it. It's not though.

You cannot accept it, for the reasons I gave in post #96.

justlookinla said:
No, the issue is what the issue has been for quite a while now. There is no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the how/process claimed by the Darwinian view (only naturalistic mechanisms, namely mutation+natural selection+time) produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago. You're attempting to move the goal posts and play on another field.

Not moving the goalposts at all as I showed in post #96

justlookinla said:
What form of evolution? Micro-evolution? Macro-evolution? Theistic evolution? Non-theistic evolution?

The scientific form:

ev·o·lu·tion
ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
1.the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection
"his interest in evolution"
2.the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form."the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion,unfolding; More

The words micro, macro and theistic are not in the definition so your question is meaningless.

justlookinla said:
And you keep trying to move the goal posts and haven't offered any evidence, based on the scientific method, for the how/process of the production of pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago. You may reference the process of micro-evolution and attempt to equate it with an alleged process of macro-evolution, but one is based on evidence of the scientific method (micro-evolution), the other isn't (macro-evolution).

The only difference is time, as I have stated previously. Nontheless, others in this thread have presented more detailed evidence. Thousands of scientists have written thousands of papers and books providing detailed evidence. You just refuse to believe them because they conflict with your religious beliefs as I stated in post #96.

whois · Oct 9, 2015

ecco said:
The only difference is time, as I have stated previously.

not according to john maynard smith:
www.researchgate.net/publication/15314671_The_Major_Evolutionary_Transitions

justlookinla · Oct 9, 2015

JonFromMinnesota said:
You asked the question "How?". The answer to that question is genetic mutations and natural selection. If this answer is correct, then common ancestry will be evidence that the answer of genetic mutations and natural selection is accurate. "All living things on earth are related" is very much part of the conversation.

That's your claim, with absolutely no evidence, based on the scientific method, to support it. You're making baseless, empty claims, simply posting words with no support.

This is not addressing comparative anatomy in the least bit.
Answer me this question: Are you asking how genetic mutations and natural selection exist? It's a natural process. One that you have agreed exists.

You simply posted the words "comparative anatomy" with absolutely no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the process which produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago. Baseless claims, empty words, isn't evidence based on the scientific method.

If you're asking how genetic mutations and natural selection gave rise to the diversity of all life on earth, the evidence has been presented to you and you should start addressing it.

I'm asking what I've been asking for probably hundreds of times now. Give the evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process which produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago. So far, you've given nothing but personal opinion with not a hint of the evidence.

You claimed to have the evidence contained in the links you posted earlier in this thread. I've asked you repeatedly to just pick one of the links and offer a reference, some content, within the link for the evidence. So far, you've offered not one reference, not a bit of content from the links. Did you read the links before you posted them? If you did, and you claim there's evidence contained in the link, post it. Reference it. Just one link, your choice.

There are several links and quotations pulled form those links in post #511 in the closed thread.

There's not a single reference to evidence for the how/process of pine trees and humans being produced from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago. You can't reference your own claims. You aren't able to post content you claim is there. That's because it's not there.

Now that we have established that genetic mutations and natural selection are a natural process,

You haven't established evidence for the process, based on the scientific method. Go back to your links you claim contain the evidence. You offered the links, made certain claims. Now prove it. Reference the evidence. Reference the content. Show something from the links which is evidence based on the scientific method.

You're not doing that after asking you repeatedly to support your claims. There's been nothing from those links referenced by you. The reason is that there's nothing there to offer. You're simply making wild and baseless claims.

one you have agreed exists, we can now move on to the evidence that has been presented. If you'd like to start over with comparative anatomy, feel free to do so or you can move on to point B.

You've presented no evidence in point A. If you have, please copy and paste it and we'll subject it to the scientific method to see if it passes or fails. Simply posting a term or terms isn't offering evidence, that's only offering your personal opinioin, your personal guesses and suppositions.

And again, face your claims concerning the links you gave in this thread. Support the claims with actual references, actual content referencing the experiments which resulted in the evidence for how/the process whereby pine trees and humans were produced from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.

You posted the links and made the claims. Actually address your claims.

justlookinla · Oct 9, 2015

ecco said:
You cannot accept it, for the reasons I gave in post #96.

No, I explained why I cannot accept it.

Not moving the goalposts at all as I showed in post #96

Sure you are. You're attempting to move the goalposts from the fact there's a complete lack of evidence, based on the scientific method, for the how, the process whereby pine trees and humans were produced from an alleged single life form of long ago to the rejection of Darwinism being based on religion.

The scientific form:

ev·o·lu·tion
ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
1.the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection
"his interest in evolution"
2.the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form."the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion,unfolding; More

The words micro, macro and theistic are not in the definition so your question is meaningless.

The actual form...

Micro-evolution. Based on scientific evidence
Macro-evolution. Not based on scientific evidence, basically a faith-based view
Theistic evolution. Not based on scientific evidence, basically a faith-based view
Darwinist evolution. Not based on scientific evidence, basically a faith-based view

The only difference is time, as I have stated previously.

That's your personal opinion, but that's not based on evidence which is supported by the scientific method.

Nontheless, others in this thread have presented more detailed evidence.

When? Where? Post number?

Thousands of scientists have written thousands of papers and books providing detailed evidence. You just refuse to believe them because they conflict with your religious beliefs as I stated in post #96.

Out of the thousands, I'm asking for only one reference which offers evidence, based on the scientific method, of how/the process which produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago. Just one. And a link without content, without references isn't offering evidence, based on the scientific method. If you give a link, please reference the content in the link which contains the alleged evidence.

Also, book titles aren't scientific evidence. The reason I bring this up, those are common responses but offer no content.

JonFromMinnesota · Oct 9, 2015

justlookinla said:
That's your claim, with absolutely no evidence, based on the scientific method, to support it. You're making baseless, empty claims, simply posting words with no support.

The question we are asking is "How"
Our hypothesis is "genetic mutations and natural selection gave rise to all living species on earth"
Common ancestry is a an observation that we are confirming with experiments with comparative anatomy, DNA & genetics, embryology and the fossil record.

So far we are following the scientific method

justlookinla said:
You simply posted the words "comparative anatomy" with absolutely no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the process which produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago. Baseless claims, empty words, isn't evidence based on the scientific method.

This is dishonest on your part. There is a link provided in post #511: http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IIBcomparative.shtml
Quotation from the source: "nearly every bone in each corresponds to an equivalent bone in the other." (They are comparing a baleen whale and a hummingbird). Comparative anatomy is an observational piece of evidence. "Make observations" is part of the chart you love to post. So, we are following the scientific method.

Here is a photo demonstrating comparative anatomy:

justlookinla said:
You've presented no evidence in point A. If you have, please copy and paste it and we'll subject it to the scientific method to see if it passes or fails.

Lets summarize what we've done so far.

Asked a question: How is all life on earth related?
Made a hypothesis: By process of genetic mutations and natural selection in populations.
Observations: 1st observation that we are making is comparative anatomy. The evidence that species share very similar anatomy is outlined above.

So far we are following the scientific method as comparative anatomy is part of the observational step. Would you like to move onto DNA & Genetic experiments, embryology or the fossil record next?

If you are unable or unwilling to address what has been presented to, then you have lost the debate.

lasthero · Oct 9, 2015

whois said:
not according to john maynard smith:
www.researchgate.net/publication/15314671_The_Major_Evolutionary_Transitions

I can't access the full text. Can you quote where it says that?

DerelictJunction · Oct 9, 2015

TheBear said:
I don't have any problems with that. I wonder if anyone else does.

If we can't even agree on the basics, and start off with some sort of common ground we can all agree on, then any meaningful and productive dialog is futile.

Justlookinla stated that he doesn't want to go in that direction. Instead he wants to start with the question regarding the how of pine trees and humans being descended from the same original organism. I am working on a response that hopefully won't result in a repeat of the same question. The vagueness of the question and the reluctance of the questioner to provide details or definitions doesn't leave me with much confidence in accomplishing anything.

Some comment from justlookinla claiming the theory of evolution doesn't follow the scientific method in 3...2...1.

Jimmy D · Oct 9, 2015

DerelictJunction said:
I am working on a response that hopefully won't result in a repeat of the same question.

Good luck with that!

DerelictJunction · Oct 9, 2015

justlookinla said:
I'm following the scientific method.

So you say, however....

A question has been asked, a request has been made probably well over a hundred times now. The question remains, the request is the same. Is there evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process, whereby pine trees and humans were produced from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.

This is not a scientific question.
First, it presumes a two things:
1. Pine trees and humans were produced from a single life form.
2. A process has been defined for that production of extremely diverse life forms from an original life form.

Second, it is a request for documentation rather than a research-inducing query. So, I am unsure if the scientific method can be applied here.

For the sake of maintaining this thread, I will attempt to shoehorn your request into the scientific method. This will require some minimal cooperation on your part.

It appears that since the question has been asked, some background research is required. So let us start.

I am unsure of what you mean by this presumed process for which you desire evidence. Please describe the process in detail so that I can begin the background research.

essentialsaltes · Oct 9, 2015

justlookinla said:
No, the goalposts have not been moved at all

Yes, they have. You agreed that we could discuss "one pair of organisms with many anatomical similarities" and brought up peppered moths.

It's not 'suddenly' pine trees and humans.

Yes, it was sudden. Do pine trees and humans have "many anatomical similarities"? No. You moved the goalposts.

ecco · Oct 9, 2015

whois said:
not according to john maynard smith:
www.researchgate.net/publication/15314671_The_Major_Evolutionary_Transitions

It's clear from their posts that whois and justlookinla are on the same side of the discussion between evolutionists and anti-evolutionists. When I posted "the only difference (between micro and macro evolution) is time", whois responded (above) with just a link to a lengthy article. He provided no quotes from the article to indicate supporting evidence for his position.

When I posted "Thousands of scientists have written thousands of papers and books providing detailed evidence. You just refuse to believe them because they conflict with your religious beliefs as I stated in post #96.", justlookinla responded with:

"Just one. And a link without content, without references isn't offering evidence, based on the scientific method. If you give a link, please reference the content in the link which contains the alleged evidence."

Now, I do realize that justlookinla and whois are two different people with two different styles of discussing, but why should my responses require a higher level of effort than the responses of an anti-evolutionist?

whois · Oct 9, 2015

ecco said:
It's clear from their posts that whois and justlookinla are on the same side of the discussion between evolutionists and anti-evolutionists. When I posted "the only difference (between micro and macro evolution) is time", whois responded (above) with just a link to a lengthy article. He provided no quotes from the article to indicate supporting evidence for his position.

i do this so you will read the article.
this also applies to post 97 where i presented a host of links, you can see for yourself the context.
the same applies to post 103, where eldridge talks about the fossil record.
you cannot easily apply "creationist" or "clouding the issue" when you are presented with the entire article.

ecco · Oct 9, 2015

justlookinla said:
No, I explained why I cannot accept it.

Yes, you did:

"There is no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the how/process claimed by the Darwinian view (only naturalistic mechanisms, namely mutation+natural selection+time) produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago."

The problem with your response is that there is more than sufficient evidence for thousands of professional scientists in diverse fields and millions of lay persons including thousands of clergy. You just refuse to accept the evidence because it conflicts with your religious views. In that regard you are no different than people who clung to (some still cling to) geocentricity and a flat earth.

justlookinla said:
You're attempting to move the goalposts from the fact there's a complete lack of evidence, based on the scientific method, for the how, the process whereby pine trees and humans were produced from an alleged single life form of long ago to the rejection of Darwinism being based on religion.

They are two different approaches to the same argument. Others here have repeatedly presented the evidence you have requested. You refuse to accept the validity of the evidence. It's fair to discuss why you refuse to accept the evidence.

justlookinla said:
The actual form...

Micro-evolution. Based on scientific evidence
Macro-evolution. Not based on scientific evidence, basically a faith-based view
Theistic evolution. Not based on scientific evidence, basically a faith-based view
Darwinist evolution. Not based on scientific evidence, basically a faith-based view

This is another example of your refusal to accept evidence based reality. You do not get to define evolution as you see fit. There is a definition of evolution and it does not include the words theistic, micro or macro.

justlookinla said:
Out of the thousands, I'm asking for only one reference which offers evidence, based on the scientific method, of how/the process which produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago. Just one. And a link without content, without references isn't offering evidence, based on the scientific method. If you give a link, please reference the content in the link which contains the alleged evidence.

Also, book titles aren't scientific evidence. The reason I bring this up, those are common responses but offer no content.

Of course books aren't scientific evidence, but they contain scientific evidence. You are asking for one reference that will provide evidence for the entire concept of evolution. But you know it's not that simple. That's why there are thousands of papers and books written on just specific elements of evolution. Your request is disingenuous.

ecco · Oct 9, 2015

RE:http://www.researchgate.net/publication/15314671_The_Major_Evolutionary_Transitions

whois said:
i do this so you will read the article.

The question is, did you read the article or did you just skim the title and get as far as:

There is no theoretical reason to expect evolutionary lineages to increase in complexity with time, and no empirical evidence that they do so.

That certainly seems to support your argument.

But, then we get to the very next word:

Nevertheless,

Whoa. Is this a qualifier that implies that what preceded may not be correct? Let's read more and see:

eukaryotic cells are more complex than prokaryotic ones, animals and plants are more complex than protists, and so on. This increase in complexity may have been achieved as a result of a series of major evolutionary transitions. These involved changes in the way information is stored and transmitted.

"increase in complexity"? "major evolutionary transitions"? Hmmm, seems to me that the authors are supporting evolution.

Now, I will admit that most of the article was over my head. But, my interpretation from reading through it was that it was a pro-evolution paper. Of course, I may be mistaken. Perhaps you could link to those parts of the article that support your viewpoint.

justlookinla · Oct 9, 2015

JonFromMinnesota said:
The question we are asking is "How"

The issue is what the issue has been for hundreds of posts now. Give the evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process, whereby pine trees and humans were produced from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.

Our hypothesis is "genetic mutations and natural selection gave rise to all living species on earth"

That's nothing more than a guess, a supposition, without scientific evidence.

Common ancestry is a an observation that we are confirming with experiments with comparative anatomy, DNA & genetics, embryology and the fossil record.

So far we are following the scientific method

Common ancestry doesn't describe the HOW, the process.

This is dishonest on your part. There is a link provided in post #511: http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IIBcomparative.shtml
Quotation from the source: "nearly every bone in each corresponds to an equivalent bone in the other." (They are comparing a baleen whale and a hummingbird). Comparative anatomy is an observational piece of evidence. "Make observations" is part of the chart you love to post. So, we are following the scientific method.

That's no addressing the how, the process. You're still trying to move the goalposts to common ancestry. That's not going to happen.

Lets summarize what we've done so far.

Asked a question: How is all life on earth related?

That's not the question. It's never been the question. The question is concerning the HOW, the process, based on the scientific method, which produced both pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago.
Made a hypothesis: By process of genetic mutations and natural selection in populations.
Observations: 1st observation that we are making is comparative anatomy. The evidence that species share very similar anatomy is outlined above.

So far we are following the scientific method as comparative anatomy is part of the observational step. Would you like to move onto DNA & Genetic experiments, embryology or the fossil record next?

If you are unable or unwilling to address what has been presented to, then you have lost the debate.

You've not presented one bit of evidence for the HOW, the process.

Are you actually going to face your links you posted and actually give references, give content for the alleged evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW/the process, where pine trees and humans were produced from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago? I've asked you to do this several times now and you simply ignore my requests.

Another Try At Examining Alleged Evidence For The Darwinian Process

Well-Known Member

rational

Attachments

Poster

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Poster

rational

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Mild-Mannered Super Villian

Well-Known Member

Mild-Mannered Super Villian

Stranger in a Strange Land

Poster

rational

Poster

Poster

Regular Member

Similar threads