Another Try At Examining Alleged Evidence For The Darwinian Process

[whois]

Then just quote it so that we can know you are not just making it up.

the conclusions of the article are at the very end with the word "CONCLUSIONS" as the heading.
you didn't even read the article did you.

doesn't this bother you at all ecco?

 

[Jimmy D]

May I jump in here and say that bacteria producing bacteria ain't the same thing as a life blob (unknown) producing hickory nuts and elephants?

You can but it would be gibberish and in no way answers my question. Par for the course.

 

[mickiio]

As if you have answered his....and it's the OP.

 

[Jimmy D]

No, they are not. Evolutionists extrapolate micro to be the same thing, but there is NO evidence of crossing kinds anywhere and the evidence of it should be everywhere, if it was there.

What's the difference? Apart from the amount of time needed that is.

Here's one piece of evidence for the 'crossing of kinds', there's plenty more.

Yes, I believe in God and Genesis, however macroevolution does not follow the laws of sciences. It does not follow the Law of Cause and Effect, The Second Law of Thermodynamics nor probabilities. In essence it should be thrown out. But because it is heralded by some as the best thing since apple pie it has not been.

It's been thoroughly explained to you why these arguments are wrong, to continue using them is dishonest.

 

[Jimmy D]

As if you have answered his....and it's the OP.

Others have done a great job of it. I've got no desire to waste my time playing pigeon chess.

 

[ecco]

the conclusions of the article are at the very end with the word "CONCLUSIONS" as the heading.
you didn't even read the article did you.

doesn't this bother you at all ecco?

Then just quote it so that we can know you are not just making it up.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Then just quote it so that we can know you are not just making it up.

Here, this is the part of the conclusion to which he refers:

"The article is more an agenda for future research than a summary of what is known."

Discuss!

 

[ecco]

Here, this is the part of the conclusion to which he refers:

"The article is more an agenda for future research than a summary of what is known."

Discuss!

Let's go back to the beginning.

Whois likes to reference the Maynard article. He has done so in other threads.

I was having a discussion with another poster regarding micro and macro evolution. In post #106, I stated:
The only difference is time.

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

I repeatedly asked whois to show where in the article my statement was contradicted. He could not and he did not.

I don't believe the very detailed article even uses the terms micro or macro, clearly the conclusion doesn't.

This is just another example of the "debating" method used by whois. Post a link and hope no one notices that it doesn't substantiate the accompanying statement "not according to john maynard smith". When pressed, just ignore the repeated requests and make an attempt to turn the argument around: You didn't read the article did you?

So, 200 posts later, I'd still like whois to show where Maynard's article refutes my statement that the only difference between micro and macro evolution is time.

 

[whois]

apparently ecco doesn't understand what empirical evidence is, has not understood what eldridge has said, and doesn't want to acknowledge there is no empirical evidence for the increasing complexity of life.
ecco also apparently doesn't want to acknowledge maynard said there is no theory to explain this increase nor is there a reason to expect it.

eldridge comes right out and says they aren't finding what they were told to look for, namely transitions between species.

i have no idea why ecco says his stand has not been refuted.
and this is but ONE LINK in the many i provided in post 96.
ecco has yet to address any of the others.
as a matter of fact, ecco referred to one of those links as "anti evolution" when in fact it was a link about epigenetics.
this alone is enough to throw into question eccos understanding of what evolution actually is.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

apparently ecco doesn't understand empirical evidence is, has not understood what eldridge has said, and doesn't want to acknowledge there is no empirical evidence for the increasing complexity of life.
ecco also apparently doesn't want to acknowledge maynard said there is no theory to explain this increase nor is there a reason to expect it.

eldridge comes right out and says they aren't finding what they were told to look for, namely transitions between species.

i have no idea why ecco says his stand has not been refuted.
and this is but ONE LINK in the many i provided in post 96.
ecco has yet to address any of the others.
as a matter of fact, ecco referred to one of those links as "anti evolution" when in fact it was a link about epigenetics.
this alone is enough to throw into question eccos understanding of what evolution actually is.

Just a comment: you definitely have a habit of posting links without quoting the relevant parts that support the point you are making. You are far from the only poster who does this, but it's a really bad habit. When you have a source that supports your point you should be able to quote a relevant part of it. I wish you (and everyone) would always do this.

 

[ecco]

Let's go back to the beginning.

Whois likes to reference the Maynard article. He has done so in other threads.

I was having a discussion with another poster regarding micro and macro evolution. In post #106, I stated:
The only difference is time.

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

I repeatedly asked whois to show where in the article my statement was contradicted. He could not and he did not.

I don't believe the very detailed article even uses the terms micro or macro, clearly the conclusion doesn't.

This is just another example of the "debating" method used by whois. Post a link and hope no one notices that it doesn't substantiate the accompanying statement "not according to john maynard smith". When pressed, just ignore the repeated requests and make an attempt to turn the argument around: You didn't read the article did you?

So, 200 posts later, I'd still like whois to show where Maynard's article refutes my statement that the only difference between micro and macro evolution is time.​

apparently ecco doesn't understand what empirical evidence is, has not understood what eldridge has said, and doesn't want to acknowledge there is no empirical evidence for the increasing complexity of life.

Eldridge??? We have been discussing the article you linked to in post #107. Up until now you have repeated used the term Maynard to refer to the article. Now you want to switch goalposts again. I know that's what you do, but it does get tiresome.

ecco also apparently doesn't want to acknowledge maynard said there is no theory to explain this increase nor is there a reason to expect it.

What increase? Increase in what?

eldridge comes right out and says they aren't finding what they were told to look for, namely transitions between species.

Again with Eldridge. We weren't discussing Eldridge.

i have no idea why ecco says his stand has not been refuted.
and this is but ONE LINK in the many i provided in post 96.
ecco has yet to address any of the others.

Again, back to the beginning...I was having a discussion with another poster regarding micro and macro evolution. In post #106, I stated:
The only difference is time.
Whois responded with:
not according to john maynard smith:​

Now you are saying I should have gone back to post #96? Really? Maybe I should go back to post #1 and find all the blind links you posted and referred. Why should I look at any of your other links other than the one you specifically you posted in response to my comment? A link which does not refute my comment in any way, shape or form. I have challanged you, repeatedly to show where is does and you have not. Gee, I think I have said that more than a few times already.

as a matter of fact, ecco referred to one of those links as "anti evolution" when in fact it was a link about epigenetics.
this alone is enough to throw into question eccos understanding of what evolution actually is.

Which link, which post. If I can take the time to go back and find the beginning of our conversation regarding Maynard, you surely can take the time to go back to verify your comment.

Better yet, read the Maynard article and show us all where Maynard contradicts my comment regarding evolution as stated in post # 106. You've had a week and haven't produced, so I'm not expecting anything.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I repeatedly asked whois to show where in the article my statement was contradicted. He could not and he did not.​

​

One of many reasons why I have him on ignore.

 

[whois]

Let's go back to the beginning.

Whois likes to reference the Maynard article. He has done so in other threads.

I was having a discussion with another poster regarding micro and macro evolution. In post #106, I stated:
The only difference is time.

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

I repeatedly asked whois to show where in the article my statement was contradicted. He could not and he did not.

I don't believe the very detailed article even uses the terms micro or macro, clearly the conclusion doesn't.

This is just another example of the "debating" method used by whois. Post a link and hope no one notices that it doesn't substantiate the accompanying statement "not according to john maynard smith". When pressed, just ignore the repeated requests and make an attempt to turn the argument around: You didn't read the article did you?

So, 200 posts later, I'd still like whois to show where Maynard's article refutes my statement that the only difference between micro and macro evolution is time.​

Eldridge??? We have been discussing the article you linked to in post #107. Up until now you have repeated used the term Maynard to refer to the article. Now you want to switch goalposts again. I know that's what you do, but it does get tiresome.



What increase? Increase in what?


Again with Eldridge. We weren't discussing Eldridge.

Again, back to the beginning...I was having a discussion with another poster regarding micro and macro evolution. In post #106, I stated:
The only difference is time.
Whois responded with:
not according to john maynard smith:​

Now you are saying I should have gone back to post #96? Really? Maybe I should go back to post #1 and find all the blind links you posted and referred. Why should I look at any of your other links other than the one you specifically you posted in response to my comment? A link which does not refute my comment in any way, shape or form. I have challanged you, repeatedly to show where is does and you have not. Gee, I think I have said that more than a few times already.



Which link, which post. If I can take the time to go back and find the beginning of our conversation regarding Maynard, you surely can take the time to go back to verify your comment.

Better yet, read the Maynard article and show us all where Maynard contradicts my comment regarding evolution as stated in post # 106. You've had a week and haven't produced, so I'm not expecting anything.

coming from someone that considers epigenetics "anti evolution"'.
thanks for addressing the evidence i offered.

 

[whois]

propositions of the modern synthesis that have been falsified:
1. Fixation of (rare) beneficial changes by natural selection is the main driving force of evolution that, generally, produces increasingly complex adaptive features of organisms; hence progress as a general trend in evolution.
false: Natural (positive) selection is an important factor of evolution but is only one of several fundamental forces and is not quantitatively dominant; neutral processes combined with purifying selection dominate evolution. Genomic complexity, probably evolved as a ‘genomic syndrome’ cause by weak purifying selection in small population and not as an adaptation. There is no consistent trend towards increasing complexity in evolution, and the notion of evolutionary progress is unwarranted.

2. The variations fixed by natural selection are ‘infinitesimally small’. Evolution adheres to gradualism.
false: Even single gene duplications and HGT of single genes are by no means ‘infinitesimally small’ let alone deletion or acquisition of larger regions, genome rearrangements, whole-genome duplication, and most dramatically, endosymbiosis. Gradualism is not the principal regime of evolution.

3. The entire evolution of life can be depicted as a single ‘big tree’.
false: The discovery of the fundamental contributions of HGT and mobile genetic elements to genome evolution invalidate the TOL concept in its original sense. However, trees remain essential templates to represent evolution of individual genes and many phases of evolution in groups of relatively close organisms. The possibility of salvaging the TOL as a central trend of evolution remain.
-darwinian evolution in the light of genomics.

 

[mickiio]

........

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

 

[ecco]

coming from someone that considers epigenetics "anti evolution"'.
thanks for addressing the evidence i offered.

Once again, you make statements you cannot back up because they are not true.

• I did not say I consider epigenetics "anti evolution"'.
• I did say you post links to anti-evolution web sites.

Let's see who is being truthful.

After you referenced maynard in post #107, you tried to deflect my subsequent questions about the article by bringing up another bunch of unsupported links:

In post# 117 you wrote:

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 ​

Actually, you posted in #96, not #97, but, close enough. This post had nothing to do with Maynard. Also it was addressed to, and referenced someone. Nevertheless:

Whois post#96

he just usually ignores that which he has no answer for.
he has yet to address any of the points in the following post:
Common ancestor between chimps and humans​

The link takes us to your post #200 in the thread:

Common ancestor between chimps and humans​

There, as you often do, you present a bunch of links with no commentary of your own. One of the links is to:

http://www.evillusion.net/

If you read this blog with an objective eye, you won’t be able to help but find that evolution is not the answer, unless you have been successfully programmed. But most of all, for me, it’s rather fun to debunk a science that is so self aggrandizing, highly promoted, and pushed into the science classrooms of unwary school kids by legal groups such as teacher’s unions and the ACLU.
​

Evillusion.net is an anti-evolution web site hosted by a dentist.
This is the anti-evolution site I referred to.

​

Whois,
I have wondered if you just cannot keep track of what you post and my responses, or if you intentionally misrepresent and distort the conversation. At this point, I am convinced it is the latter.

However, I will gladly retract that, if you can show where I ever said epigenetics is "anti evolution". No more ducking and dodging. No more intentional misrepresentations and distortions.

 

[whois]

Evillusion.net is an anti-evolution web site hosted by a dentist.
This is the anti-evolution site I referred to.

​

please refer to post 209 before you call me a liar again.

BTW, i'm not going to argue about this anymore with you.
if you want to address the content of the links i provide then let's do it, otherwise . . .

 

[ecco]

please refer to post 209 before you call me a liar again.

BTW, i'm not going to argue about this anymore with you.
if you want to address the content of the links i provide then let's do it, otherwise . . .

Once again, let's try to put things into perspective.

whois 489:

as a matter of fact, ecco referred to one of those links as "anti evolution" when in fact it was a link about epigenetics.
this alone is enough to throw into question eccos understanding of what evolution actually is.​

ecco 491:

Which link, which post. If I can take the time to go back and find the beginning of our conversation regarding Maynard, you surely can take the time to go back to verify your comment.​

You could have clarified the issue at that time by responding with the post in question. Instead, you just repeated:

whois 493:

coming from someone that considers epigenetics "anti evolution"'.​

ecco 497:

However, I will gladly retract that, if you can show where I ever said epigenetics is "anti evolution". No more ducking and dodging. No more intentional misrepresentations and distortions.​

whois 498:

please refer to post 209 before you call me a liar again.​

So, now that you finally gave the information I had been asking for, I went back and reviewed post 209.

ecco 209

In that post #200 you linked to a dozen articles/websites. All without any comments of your own or quotes from the sites to try to show your intent.
I went to three of them at random:
www.evillusion.net
http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...pigenetic_approach_to_evolution._J_Theor_Biol
All of them are anti evolution.​

In 497 I already addressed...

http://www.evillusion.net/

If you read this blog with an objective eye, you won’t be able to help but find that evolution is not the answer, unless you have been successfully programmed. But most of all, for me, it’s rather fun to debunk a science that is so self aggrandizing, highly promoted, and pushed into the science classrooms of unwary school kids by legal groups such as teacher’s unions and the ACLU.
​

Clearly anti-evolution.

I also went back and looked again at...

http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/​

There are hundreds of articles, some with titles like...

Evolution Bug
New Evolution Dilemma
Sharks, No Evolutionary Forerunner​

...and a mission statement...

With over 1,000 references, Darwin Then and Now is a historical chronicle of the rise and fall of the once popular theory of biological evolution. ​

Hmmm, "rise and fall" Sure sounds like it's anti-evolution.


I also went back looked again at...
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...pigenetic_approach_to_evolution._J_Theor_Biol

So it seems that this is the source of your repeated reference to me as 'someone that considers epigenetics "anti evolution"'.


Well done indeed.

Earlier I asked:

How do you explain the presence of humans on earth?
What evidence do you have for that position?
Your own thoughts, words, beliefs, ideas, theories, concepts.​

Instead of responding, you ducked, stating...

good questions, maynard gives one possible method in his paper i mentioned.​

When pressed, you finally answered, enigmatically

i get asked this question a lot.
i don't have any real belief one way or another.​

You have no real beliefs regarding the presence of humans on earth. I guess that explains why you post links to web sites and articles that posit many different views on evolution. I guess it also explains why you usually don't post any of your own thoughts with those links.

Most people I have encountered on many forums use an approach something like:

Here is what I believe.
Here are some articles written by people who support my views or disagree with your views.
​

Your "debating style" is more along the lines:

I don't want to state what I believe.
Here are a lot of articles that may or may not support what I may or may not believe, but you go ahead and read them all.

​

I'll keep that in mind if I see posts from you in other threads.

​