Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Oncedeceived]

If it is an illusion, then it isn't evidence.

It is evidence denied and dismissed as an illusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There is no evidence of plant life prior to the Cambrian explosion. However, none of my arguments require there being no plant life prior the Cambrian explosion.

Your argument does rest on the claim that there are no ancestors for the species found in the Cambrian. The problem is that you have no evidence for this claim.

If you have evidence for precursors of the life forms in the Cambrian then you are going to be very famous because no one else has discovered them as of yet.

 

[Loudmouth]

You can't speak for everyone.

And you can?

 

[Loudmouth]

It is evidence denied and dismissed as an illusion.

Then show that it is more than an illusion. Until you do, it isn't evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you have evidence for precursors of the life forms in the Cambrian then you are going to be very famous because no one else has discovered them as of yet.

If you have found that species in the Cambrian did not have precursors, then you will also be famous. Where is that evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh, what facts am I avoiding?

The nested hierarchy, for starters.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And you can?

touche'

 

[Oncedeceived]

The nested hierarchy, for starters.

How am I avoiding it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you have found that species in the Cambrian did not have precursors, then you will also be famous. Where is that evidence?

There is no evidence of any precursors for the life found in the Cambrian explosion. Period.
IF you only accept only what is in evidence that leaves you holding the bag.

 

[Loudmouth]

How am I avoiding it?

How does intelligent design explain the nested hierarchy in a testable and falsifiable manner?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then show that it is more than an illusion. Until you do, it isn't evidence.

IF something is detected that appears designed, that stands alone. You are the one that needs to show how that appearance is not actual and is an illusion. If something appears to be a Zebra and has all the markings of a Zebra and you claim it is just an illusion it is up to you to give evidence that it is an illusion.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no evidence of any precursors for the life found in the Cambrian explosion. Period.

Just as 150 years ago there was no evidence for human prececessors. Now there is.

Therefore, no theory can be based on the claim that a species does not have a precursor because the fossil record is known to be unreliable for determining if a species does or does not have a precursor.

IF you only accept only what is in evidence that leaves you holding the bag.

What is not in evidence is species not having a precursor.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How does intelligent design explain the nested hierarchy in a testable and falsifiable manner?

We have been through this so many times. There are kinds and those kinds lead to other kinds and had other kinds prior to those kinds. You are still under the false assumption that evolution means no God.

 

[Loudmouth]

We have been through this so many times. There are kinds and those kinds lead to other kinds and had other kinds prior to those kinds. You are still under the false assumption that evolution means no God.

Where did I ever say that evolution means no God? I have never said that, and I don't believe that.

Notice how once again you have failed to give an explanation for the nested hierarchy as a part of intelligent design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Just as 150 years ago there was no evidence for human prececessors. Now there is.

Yet, these same precursors of humans have been shifted around and some even determined to be just apes. New fossils change the precursors repeatedly.

Therefore, no theory can be based on the claim that a species does not have a precursor because the fossil record is known to be unreliable for determining if a species does or does not have a precursor.

What you are saying and you should realize is that just because there is no evidence for something doesn't put your view in peril because you can always claim that there is a possibility of finding it in the future. That is begging the question and the same thing that you deny us when we claim that there might have been life on earliest earth that was completely wiped out. No difference except it is what you want to believe.

What is not in evidence is species not having a precursor.

That is bizarre. You are making up evidence that doesn't exist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Where did I ever say that evolution means no God? I have never said that, and I don't believe that.

Notice how once again you have failed to give an explanation for the nested hierarchy as a part of intelligent design.

It is a man made organizing tool which began by simple similarities in life forms. Nothing that special as you seem to think.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yet, these same precursors of humans have been shifted around and some even determined to be just apes.

Humans are just apes. We have fossils with a mixture of human and basal ape features. They are transitional.

All you are doing is proving that you would ignore the Cambrian precursors when they are found.

What you are saying and you should realize is that just because there is no evidence for something doesn't put your view in peril because you can always claim that there is a possibility of finding it in the future. That is begging the question and the same thing that you deny us when we claim that there might have been life on earliest earth that was completely wiped out. No difference except it is what you want to believe.

The theory of evolution is supported BY THE FOSSILS WE DO HAVE. That is what you are ignoring. The theory of evolution doesn't rest solely on a certain fossil not being found. Rather, every single fossil we have found fits into the predicted nested hierarchy. All of them. We have positive fossil evidence, not negative evidence as you have. That is the difference.

You can't explain the nested hierarchy, including the fossils we do have.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Humans are just apes. We have fossils with a mixture of human and basal ape features. They are transitional.

All you are doing is proving that you would ignore the Cambrian precursors when they are found.

Provide the evidence for those precursors for life in the Cambrian that I am ignoring. It seems scientists are ignorant of them.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7430/full/nature11777.html
http://www.nature.com/news/life-on-land-1.12001

The theory of evolution is supported BY THE FOSSILS WE DO HAVE. That is what you are ignoring. The theory of evolution doesn't rest solely on a certain fossil not being found. Rather, every single fossil we have found fits into the predicted nested hierarchy. All of them. We have positive fossil evidence, not negative evidence as you have. That is the difference.

We always find a place to put them in the nested hierarchy. Right now we have no evidence for precursors of the Cambrian fauna. You can hand wave it away but it is a fact.

You can't explain the nested hierarchy, including the fossils we do have.

I have no problem with it at all.

 

[The Cadet]

I would ask what you call phenomenally complex that we know for certain were made by natural processes alone.

Snowflakes and other crystalline structures immediately spring to mind.

I don't just think I "see" design. Dawkins, Crick and most biologists see that appearance of design and some have concluded that evolution alone could not have been responsible while others dismiss it as an illusion.

Okay, so how do you distinguish between a designed object and a non-designed object?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Snowflakes and other crystalline structures immediately spring to mind.

They have no purposeful function a function that is complex within the complex.



Okay, so how do you distinguish between a designed object and a non-designed object?[/QUOTE]
The fact that we can recognize design says it all. If a biologist has to remind himself/herself that what they are seeing is an illusion it is apparent that the design is recognizable.