Icons of Evolution

[Shemjaza]

Do you have a series of concatenated fossils to show this? or are you willing to jump the shark to stick to your belief?

If I had a complete sample of every single generation from Buzzard3 to what you would unambiguously call "an ape" you still wouldn't believe it.

In any reasonable sense the consistent incomplete fossil and genetic lineage with supporting geological evidence absolutely demonstrates evolutionary history.

View attachment 366819

This absolutely fits into the nested hierarchy. Fossil, genetic and structural evidence demonstrate that this is a variety of mammal with some traits more consistent with the evidenced basal synapsids.

In other words, you can't prove that mammals descended from fish, let alone prove that mammals descended from fish via a natural process. That comes as no surprise at all.

In a mathematical sense of prove? No. However I can't "prove" that I'm my mother's son to that standard.

Science deals in demonstrable evidence. So using the scientific evidence and using "prove" in the colloquial "beyond all reasonable doubt" then evolution in general and common descent in particular are absolutely proven.

The natural processes of mutation and inheritance have been demonstrated to be a mechanism for successive changes to species... and we have evidence that is consistent with this occurring on the universal scale so it is reasonable to accept it as an explanation.

We have gaps in out knowledge about what exact mechanisms were present, but we do not have examples that are counter to natural selection and mutation as explanations.

 

[Buzzard3]

The natural processes of mutation and inheritance have been demonstrated to be a mechanism for successive changes to species... and we have evidence that is consistent with this occurring on the universal scale so it is reasonable to accept it as an explanation.

I accept that the theory of evolution is the best available scientific explanation for what produced the history of life on earth, but I certainly don't accept it as the truth ... on fact, I suspect it's nowhere near the truth.

We have gaps in out knowledge about what exact mechanisms were present

That's an understatement. We have no "knowledge" about what mechanisms were responsible for producing the history of life on earth, for it's impossible to obtain such knowledge. The best anyone can do is theorise about what mechanisms were responsible.

Furthermore, we don't even know what the history of life on earth is, simply because fossils may have recorded only a tiny fraction of all the organisms that have ever existed. The history of life on earth is unknowable.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I accept that the theory of evolution is the best available scientific explanation for what produced the history of life on earth, but I certainly don't accept it as the truth ... on fact, I suspect it's nowhere near the truth.

The understatement of the decade. We have no "knowledge" about what mechanisms were responsible for producing the history of life on earth. It's impossible to know what the mechanisms were ... all science can do to theorise about what mechanisms were responsible.

Furthermore, we don't even know what the history of life on earth is, simply because fossils may have recorded only a tiny fraction of all the organisms that have ever existed. The history of life on earth is unknowable.

And yet none of this goes anyway to support the claim that the theory of evolution isn't the best working biological theory we have for how life became what we know it to be

Buddy, all you're doing is "Yeah but... we don't know" and acting like that's some sort of win for you, only showing that, more than likely, because you don't personally know means that every scientist, paleontologist et al is wrong. Can you actually present any evidence that shows that the theory of evolution is incorrect instead of just making the same claim over and over again?

 

[Buzzard3]

Can you actually present any evidence that shows that the theory of evolution is incorrect instead of just making the same claim over and over again?

I'm not interested in disproving ToE. My point is that it can't be proven to be the truth. Furthermore, I suspect it's not even close to the truth.

And yet none of this goes anyway to support the claim that the theory of evolution isn't the best working biological theory we have for how life became what we know it to be

I suggest that the theory of evolution is inherently irrational.

I suggest that postulating that human beings are the result of some mindless biological process is irrational. Therefore I suggest that postulatng that the history of life on earth is the result of some mindless biological process is irrational. Therefore I suggest that the theory of evolution is inherently irrational.

 

[Buzzard3]

The natural processes of mutation and inheritance have been demonstrated to be a mechanism for successive changes to species... and we have evidence that is consistent with this occurring on the universal scale so it is reasonable to accept it as an explanation.

The theory of evolution is inherently irrational.

Believing that human beings are the result of some mindless biological process is highly irrational, therefore believing that the history of life on earth is the result of some mindless biological process is highly irrational, therefore the theory of evolution is inherently irrational.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm not interested in disproving ToE. My point is that it can't be proven to be the truth. Furthermore, I suspect it's not even close to the truth.

But the theory of evolution doesn't claim to be truth. Truth is not something science deals with. Science only deals with the evidence and the evidence points to the abundance of life we have in the world and the world's history is because of evolution.

The theory of evolution is inherently irrational.

Believing that human beings are the result of some mindless biological process is irrational, therefore believing that the history of life on earth is the result of some mindless biological process is irrational, therefore the theory of evolution is irrational.

Do you have any evidence at all to back this up except for your own claims?

 

[Buzzard3]

Do you have any evidence at all to back this up except for your own claims?

Yes ...

"18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles." (Romans 1)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes ...

"18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles." (Romans 1)

That's not evidence, that's again a claim.

 

[Buzzard3]

That's not evidence, that's again a claim.

Billions of Christians accept it as evidence.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Billions of Christians accept it as evidence.

But it does not count as scientific evidence in the slightest. If you want to show that a scientific theory can be made invalid, you need scientific evidence. Quoting Bible verses only shows that you can quote Bible verses.

 

[Buzzard3]

But it does not count as scientific evidence in the slightest. If you want to show that a scientific theory can be made invalid, you need scientific evidence. Quoting Bible verses only shows that you can quote Bible verses.

I suggest that it's a scientific fact that it's irrational to postulate that human beings are the result of a mindless biological process. Therefore I suggest it's also a scientific fact that it's irrational to postulate that the history of life on earth is the result of a mindless biological process.

I suggest that it follows from those two scientific facts that the theory of evolution is inherently irrational.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It is a scientific fact that it's irrational to postulate that human beings are the result of a mindless biological process. Therefore it's also a scientific fact that it's irrational to postulate that the history of life on earth is the result of a mindless biological process.

It follows from those two scientific facts that the theory of evolution is inherently irrational.

It's not irrational when we have evidence for the fact of evolution occurring on all biological organisms in Earth's history.

The only thing irrational is the idea that because if offends your religious beliefs that anyone should take what you say seriously.

 

[AV1611VET]

I suggest that it's a scientific fact that it's irrational to postulate that human beings are the result of a mindless biological process. Therefore I suggest it's also a scientific fact that it's irrational to postulate that the history of life on earth is the result of a mindless biological process.

I suggest that it follows from those two scientific facts that the theory of evolution is inherently irrational.

It's not irrational when we have evidence for the fact of evolution occurring on all biological organisms in Earth's history.

Mindlessly?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Mindlessly?

Well yes, since nature has no intellect behind it. Now the intellect behind the one who created nature is something else entirely...

 

[Buzzard3]

It's not irrational when we have evidence for the fact of evolution occurring on all biological organisms in Earth's history.

The only thing irrational is the idea that because if offends your religious beliefs that anyone should take what you say seriously.

I suggest that it's scientifically irrational to postulate that an unconscious, mindless biological process can produce human consciousness and the human mind.

I suggest therefore that the theory of evolution is scientifically irrational.

 

[BCP1928]

I'm not interested in disproving ToE. My point is that it can't be proven to be the truth.

And you keep making it over and over and we keep agreeing with you over and over but for some reason you won't stop.

I suggest that the theory of evolution is inherently irrational.

I suggest that postulating that human beings are the result of some mindless biological process is irrational. Therefore I suggest that postulatng that the history of life on earth is the result of some mindless biological process is irrational. Therefore I suggest that the theory of evolution is inherently irrational.

No just "some mindless biological process" but a well characterized, well evidenced mathematically modelled biological process with the demonstrated capacity. As much as you go on about the impossibility of knowing what happened in the past, the process itself is rock solid.

 

[Buzzard3]

And you keep making it over and over and we keep agreeing with you over and over but for some reason you won't stop.

I'm sorry - it seems that I'm out of control. I will endeavour to regain control and move on.

 

[Buzzard3]

with the demonstrated capacity.

I must have been out of the room when that capacity was demonstrated.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I suggest that it's scientifically irrational to postulate that an unconscious, mindless biological process can produce human consciousness and the human mind.

I suggest therefore that the theory of evolution is scientifically irrational.

You can SAY it's irrational all you want, but it's impossible for you to SHOW that it's irrational.

Do you understand? If you want to SHOW that it's irrational, then you need to give actual scientific evidence that it's irrational. Until then, all you're doing is just crying in the wind.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well yes, since nature has no intellect behind it. Now the intellect behind the one who created nature is something else entirely...

This "one who created nature" you speak of, can some of His rebellious subordinates influence our mindsets?