Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[RickG]

Maybe you can answer a simple question then. Why do evolutionists so frequently present the linearity of stratigraphic progression + morphology as confirming evidence for "transitional" sequence? Why are they constantly focusing on the specific stratigraphic order, if, (as you yourself admit), the fossils could also be completely disordered and it would make no difference?

First, I note that you use the term "evolutionist" quite freely. I wonder if you would provide a description of that term as you view it in your own words, as I am not in the least interested in a dictionary definition.

Second, to answer the quoted question above, I would have to say transitional fossils are not necessary to observe evolution. I demonstrating this, I ask you to explain how the fossils got into the specific sedimentary strata in which they are contained without evolution. If evolution were false, would we not expect to see fossils of all life forms that ever existed in all layers of sedimentary strata? Please explain.

 

[AV1611VET]

First, I note that you use the term "evolutionist" quite freely. I wonder if you would provide a description of that term as you view it in your own words, as I am not in the least interested in a dictionary definition.

Any person who believes reality progresses incrementally.

 

[Zosimus]

Yeah, right. How about some peer reviewed articles that support this claim.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3892587/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20961297
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3066516/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8194134
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19576549
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19169336
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23311184
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7514960
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1279168/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15465747
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18541571
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17209194
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2040094
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24281460
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2767063/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9342257
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10608913
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16633369
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12501132
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22372360
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22713768
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15905738
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8852698
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9869176
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11832687
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24976433
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21838913
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24500152
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9104578
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7552504

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10225235

RESULTS:
Over the course of the study, 12 children died of HIV-related causes.

The final Cox multivariate analysis indicated that...low levels of plasma selenium (RR = 5.96; 95% CI, 1.32-26.81; p = .02) were significantly and independently related to mortality.

Really? Even if it was cost effective you could make billions with this idea. You better get a move on.

I don't own the patent. All the patents are owned by Efranat Ltd.

 

[Zosimus]

People with clinical AIDS were always HIV-positive.

I love your logic, paraphrased: People who have AIDS are extremely likely to be HIV+; therefore, HIV causes AIDS.
Try this logic: People who have tuberculosis are extremely likely to have fevers; therefore fevers cause tuberculosis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3892587/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20961297
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3066516/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8194134
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19576549
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19169336
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23311184
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7514960
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1279168/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15465747
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18541571
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17209194
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2040094
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24281460
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2767063/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9342257
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10608913
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16633369
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12501132
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22372360
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22713768
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15905738
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8852698
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9869176
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11832687
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24976433
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21838913
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24500152
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9104578
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7552504

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10225235

RESULTS:
Over the course of the study, 12 children died of HIV-related causes.

The final Cox multivariate analysis indicated that...low levels of plasma selenium (RR = 5.96; 95% CI, 1.32-26.81; p = .02) were significantly and independently related to mortality.


I don't own the patent. All the patents are owned by Efranat Ltd.

None of those say that selenium is a cure. At best they say that selenium slows the onset of AIDS once someone gets the HIV virus. Low selenium looks like it is another symptom of AIDS, not a cause.

 

[Zosimus]

None of those say that selenium is a cure. At best they say that selenium slows the onset of AIDS once someone gets the HIV virus. Low selenium looks like it is another symptom of AIDS, not a cause.

Straw man argument. In no place did I say that selenium was a cure for anything. I said that to the extent that HIV causes problems that these problems can be managed through nutrition (aka selenium).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Straw man argument. In no place did I say that selenium was a cure for anything. I said that to the extent that HIV causes problems that these problems can be managed through nutrition (aka selenium).

Wrong again, you overstated the benefits of selenium. I see that when you are wrong you try to play word games. As I said at best it may delay onset. That is hardly "managing".

 

[TheBear]

Looks like she's been yakking about science for a LONG time.

Look at the audience behind her.

Juvenile remarks aside, did you even listen to what she said? Did you possibly learn anything from the video? Anything at all?

 

[Loudmouth]

RESULTS:

Over the course of the study, 12 children died of HIV-related causes.

The final Cox multivariate analysis indicated that...low levels of plasma selenium (RR = 5.96; 95% CI, 1.32-26.81; p = .02) were significantly and independently related to mortality.

So was the presence of HIV.

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe you can answer a simple question then. Why do evolutionists so frequently present the linearity of stratigraphic progression + morphology as confirming evidence for "transitional" sequence?

As a model of how the transition possibly occurred. If new fossils change that model, so be it.

Finding a modern monotreme is not evidence against the evolution of placental mammals from monotremes millions of years ago. Do you understand why?

 

[AV1611VET]

Juvenile remarks aside, did you even listen to what she said?

No.

 

[Zosimus]

Wrong again, you overstated the benefits of selenium. I see that when you are wrong you try to play word games. As I said at best it may delay onset. That is hardly "managing".

I am not interested in continuing a conversation that is composed primarily of personal attacks.

 

[Zosimus]

So was the presence of HIV.

It did not say that. It said that CD4 count was relevant.
CD4 cells are a type of white blood cell.

 

[Loudmouth]

It did not say that. It said that CD4 count was relevant.
CD4 cells are a type of white blood cell.

Of the children who died, how many had HIV?

 

[Zosimus]

Of the children who died, how many had HIV?

All the people in the study were HIV+

What's your point?

 

[TheBear]

No.

When you ask questions like "what takes precedence, the law of gravity or the theory of gravity", it looks like you really don't want to know. So, why ask in the first place? And when someone takes the time to help explain the difference, and all you do is poke fun at the backdrop without even listening to what is said, well, it makes you look like a jackass.

 

[AV1611VET]

When you ask questions like "what takes precedence, the law of gravity or the theory of gravity", it looks like you really don't want to know. So, why ask in the first place? And when someone takes the time to help explain the difference, and all you do is poke fun at the backdrop without even listening to what is said, well, it makes you look like a jackass.

You think about that the next time I ask a simple question and get a five minute video to watch in response.

Your video deserved it.

 

[lifepsyop]

First, I note that you use the term "evolutionist" quite freely. I wonder if you would provide a description of that term as you view it in your own words, as I am not in the least interested in a dictionary definition.

To me, an evolutionist is someone who generally believes in an Evolutionary creation narrative of the universe and everything in it.

Second, to answer the quoted question above, I would have to say transitional fossils are not necessary to observe evolution. I demonstrating this, I ask you to explain how the fossils got into the specific sedimentary strata in which they are contained without evolution. If evolution were false, would we not expect to see fossils of all life forms that ever existed in all layers of sedimentary strata? Please explain.

If Evolution was false, and the strata represents hundreds of millions of years of life on Earth, then yes we would probably expect to find the same life forms in all layers. (or at least a similar presence/absence pattern in all layers)

If the strata were formed rapidly and catastrophically (and there are many indications that it was), then no, we would certainly not expect to find all life forms in all strata.

For starters, we would only expect to find remnants of benthic sea-floor ecosystems in the lowest layers of strata.

 

[Loudmouth]

All the people in the study were HIV+

What's your point?

Would a pool of non-HIV infected cohorts have the same death rate or see the same frequency of AIDS?

 

[The Cadet]

Maybe you can answer a simple question then. Why do evolutionists so frequently present the linearity of stratigraphic progression + morphology as confirming evidence for "transitional" sequence? Why are they constantly focusing on the specific stratigraphic order, if, (as you yourself admit), the fossils could also be completely disordered and it would make no difference?


example: "whale evolution"

You've already conceded that if we found, say, a fully aquatic whale fossil earlier than the first Pakicetus fossil, then evolutionists would simply say it is because of "niches".

No, it wouldn't. It would be a real problem, because what we have here is a clear lineage. It shows the gradual evolution from one animal into another. The whale's ancestry would not be called into question by say, an ambulocetus found very recently; however, given that it's currently understood that whales evolved from land-bound mammals, finding a whale fossil before land-bound mammals like pakicetus would most likely be very problematic. We'd need to examine if the entire sequence needs to be shifted backwards based on the fossil evidence, and whether that's even possible given the surrounding geological evidence.

In fact, your theory predicts such fossil disorder is just as likely as fossil order.

How awkward.

Nothing like what you seem to believe.