Evolution - the illusion of a scientific theory

[StormanNorman]

Not just grant money. MY grant money. I didn't even know I had it, much less that Horner was getting any.

And that's the best part .... at least, from Horner's perspective.

 

[lifepsyop]

Genetic isolation, that drives speciation and evolution too. It's really hard to have gene flow and shared mutations across separate populations of species as they can no longer form a viable zygote.

If you're going to respond to me, the least you could do is try and address my argument. My whole post was premised on the fact that reproductive isolation does occur.

I just explained why this is not necessarily a mechanism for driving evolutionary events of new types of life. That reason is simple: Separating gene pools can simply lead to progressive lack of genetic variation and degradation of existing traits.

Thus claiming "speciation" as evidence for Evolution is merely equivocation.

Well if what you say is true, that all species tend towards lack of genetic variation and genomic degradation and eventual extinction, why does the fossil and genetic attest to a different history where after major extinction event occur life diversifies in taking up new biomes and niches?

It doesn't. This is your imagination at work. And you're just playing a shell game distracting with other things now that the "speciation" equivocating no longer works.

You need to get in a time machine and go tell all those organisms to stop diversifying and start degrading into extinction after major extinction events.

Um, yea.. I need to go tell a bunch of dead animals to stop diversifying.... because, you know, being rapidly buried in sediment leads to Evolution..... Whatever you say...

And to this last comment, as I've already demonstrated earlier on in this thread, fossils could be arranged in all sorts of different ways and the committed evolutionist would still hallucinate evolutionary change into them.

 

[Naturalism]

Separating gene pools can simply lead to progressive lack of genetic variation and degradation of existing traits.

I am not sure what you're point on this is. As a dynamic environment changes some populations with specific mutations that favor them over other populations will be more successful than those that do not. Extinctions occur, some win, some lose.

Why should we be surprised as more successful hominids were more prolific than other hominids who lacked derived biological advantages?

Thus claiming "speciation" as evidence for Evolution is merely equivocation.

But it's not as at the biological level speciation is the most significant one for after populations are genetically isolated you have a point where gene flow is not possible and new mutations not shared in either population will occur and NS will act on them.

It doesn't. This is your imagination at work. And you're just playing a shell game distracting with other things now that the "speciation" equivocating no longer works.

I see, so when specific geological layers are defined by the flora and fauna that is found in them, when we observe certain species going extinct (dinosaurs) followed up younger strata consisting of rapid diversification of extant mammal species, I guess all that is just a palaeontological fantasy?!

Um, yea.. I need to go tell a bunch of dead animals to stop diversifying.... because, you know, being rapidly buried in sediment leads to Evolution..... Whatever you say...

fossils could be arranged in all sorts of different ways and the committed evolutionist would still hallucinate evolutionary change into them

That is not true. Take whales (which are mammals) in the Cambrian again. How can an apparent descendant appear long before the tetrapods, the early amphibians, early reptiles, early mammals?

ToE would not really be able to accommodate such a find, and conceivably it's possible it could happen, the ToE would largely have to be scraped. But, regrettably for creationists, no evidence ever found in the fossil record shows this at all.

 

[USincognito]

That is not true. Take whales (which are mammals) in the Cambrian again. How can an apparent descendant appear long before the tetrapods, the early amphibians, early reptiles, early mammals?

ToE would not really be able to accommodate such a find, and conceivably it's possible it could happen, the ToE would largely have to be scraped. But, regrettably for creationists, no evidence ever found in the fossil record shows this at all.

One thing you'll notice is that psyop is long on broad proclamations and short on details. When he does present a detail and an one responds to it, he goes back to reiterating the broad proclamations.

 

[Only Me]

As if that means anything. You have an expertise in the nonsense that is evolution, backed by hundreds of years of falsehoods, frauds, and suppositions.

Evolution is a fact but you think you can change that fact be continually telling lies about it, you won't, it always was a fact and it will remain a fact.
You telling lies is not helping your cause because as you know any idiot can tell lies.

How about this:
If you read the NT it's obvious that the person called Jesus was gay, everything points to him being gay and nothing points to him being straight, can you find one thing that would suggest that Jesus was not gay? just one thing? no you can't because he was gay.

 

[PsychoSarah]

As if that means anything. You have an expertise in the nonsense that is evolution, backed by hundreds of years of falsehoods, frauds, and suppositions.

Oh yes, because your unfounded opinion matters so much more than decades of meticulously collected evidence which all supports evolution making it one of if not the most supported theory in science.

 

[USincognito]

As if that means anything. You have an expertise in the nonsense that is evolution, backed by hundreds of years of falsehoods, frauds, and suppositions.

sfs - 88016
crazyforgod1212 - 0

 

[lifepsyop]

That is not true. Take whales (which are mammals) in the Cambrian again. How can an apparent descendant appear long before the tetrapods, the early amphibians, early reptiles, early mammals?

ToE would not really be able to accommodate such a find, and conceivably it's possible it could happen, the ToE would largely have to be scraped. But, regrettably for creationists, no evidence ever found in the fossil record shows this at all.

See how you're forced to go to such extremes with your potential falsifications? As I mentioned in another post, anyone can come up with a "potential falsification" for practically any hypothesis. It's like me saying that discovering 'non-reproducing life' would falsify Genesis which states that life multiplies. You would probably say that is grasping at straws, but it's on the same level of theoretical robustness as your "mammals in the Cambrian" example.

You're scraping the barrel to find something, anything, that actually makes Evolution theory seem scientific.

The truth is that most fossil rearrangements would be able to be accommodated. The fossils trends could have been that mammals, reptiles, birds were rearranged completely differently throughout the Upper Paleozoic to after the Paleogene and potential evolutionary phylogenies could still be strung together within existing theoretical constraints. There is a lot of room for accommodation of different data and evolutionary storytelling.

But even your cherry-picked 'mammals in the cambrian' example would not necessarily stop Evolution theory. Let's push it even further and hypothetically say every major type of life is found in the Cambrian. If this trend was discovered in earlier centuries, the theory could have been developed around the belief that most of Evolution occurred in the deep pre-cambrian but mass extinction/mass fossilization events did not occur until the Cambrian which is why all the different animal orders began to appear in the rocks there.

In this case, evolutionists would still try and line up various morphologies and comparative anatomies and make 'homology' arguments to try and convince people that body-plan transitions had occurred, but any temporal signal in the rocks had been confounded by nature. (I'm not speculating because these same types of arguments are used today when the "transitions" are out of order)

In this scenario, when creationists would inevitably point out the total lack of any semblance of fossil sequence, they would be accused of using a "God of the Gaps" argument. Evolution theory would proceed unhindered under the same rationale as it does today - because it would be a "natural" explanation, therefore it would *have* to be true, and anyone who thought differently would just be 'clinging to their religion'. It would be the same rhetoric as we hear today.

Even in situations where a natural explanation is admittedly far-fetched, like in the case of Abiogenesis, the "scientific" view is it still that it *must* have happened, for the very reason that it would be a "natural explanation" and to suggest otherwise is derided as a "god of the gaps" argument....

That's how this game works. We were going to have a "Theory of Evolution" no matter what. People have itching ears for vain philosophies. They wanted the delusion.

 

[lifepsyop]

Oh yes, because your unfounded opinion matters so much more than decades of meticulously collected evidence which all supports evolution making it one of if not the most supported theory in science.

Mantra
(noun)
: a sound, word, or phrase that is repeated by someone who is praying or meditating
: a word or phrase that is repeated often or that expresses someone's basic beliefs
: a mystical formula of invocation or incantation

 

[PsychoSarah]

Mantra
(noun)
: a sound, word, or phrase that is repeated by someone who is praying or meditating
: a word or phrase that is repeated often or that expresses someone's basic beliefs
: a mystical formula of invocation or incantation

Couldn't refute my point? Yes, arguments and debates are bound to get repetitive when they are about one subject for weeks on end.

 

[USincognito]

Mantra
(noun)

I thought PS's response to cfg1212's response to sfs's Google Scholar response was spot on. Perhaps you missed the original.

 

[sfs]

I have no doubt you can predict many things in biology. The problem comes with decoding the actual basis on which you're making such predictions.

I think your ability to predict comes from what you've already observed in Biology... and you probably tend to mistake what you have observed as something that can only be explained by Evolution.

Do you see what you just did there? You were given an opportunity to discuss a concrete prediction by a biologist in detail, and you retreated into vague generalities. As I've said before, creationists hate data, especially genetic data. They'd rather talk about almost anything else.

You also failed to answer the question: can you find any creationist who will make a similar concrete prediction? Yes or no?

I believe you also never told me: are you willing to defend the Kondrashov model or not?

 

[Only Me]

I think your ability to predict comes from what you've already observed in Biology... and you probably tend to mistake what you have observed as something that can only be explained by Evolution.

How else can anyone explain it? can you explain it using ID or creationism?
I'm not going to wait for you to answer because we all already know the answer and it's "NO".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh yes, because your unfounded opinion matters so much more than decades of meticulously collected evidence which all supports evolution making it one of if not the most supported theory in science.

What evidence? 50+ years of mutation experiments started by evolutionists which evolutionists then ignore because it failed to produce anything new or support their theory in the slightest?

What, the coelacanth, the prime example of a transitional species between fish and amphibians that turned out to be nothing of the sort when one was found and could be studied? Until we actually found one you claimed it was evidence too.

What, the Archaeopteryx lithographica, the prime example of transitory species between bird and dinosaur, until of course earlier birds were found? You once claimed that was your evidence too.

What, the tree of life, which is turning out to be nothing but individual bushes with only sideways variation (kind after kind) with no linking to anything else? You once claimed the evidence would show distinct links, which as technology advances it is showing just the opposite.

What evidence? The many thousands of fossils you have incorrectly labeled simply to support your theory?

What evidence? Calling two Felidae that can mate and produce fertile offspring separate species on a whim, simply to reinforce your religious beliefs about evolution????

What evidence? You mean every single fossil of any animal that is always the same from the very first one found until the very last one found? And then imagination takes over and you tell us how they evolve but you just can't find the intermediate links? Over 200,000,000 fossils and conveniently only the transitory species are missing?

You mean imagination of the mind, that what we considering evidence now??

 

[lasthero]

What, the coelacanth, the prime example of a transitional species between fish and amphibians that turned out to be nothing of the sort when one was found and could be studied? Until we actually found one you claimed it was evidence too.

Again with this.

Just, can you provide any documentation showing anyone ever thought the coelacanth was a transition between fish and amphibians? Anything at all? Because I've never heard anyone say that, ever. I think you're confusing it with Tiktaalik.

And what do you mean 'until we found one'? When have creationists ever found anything?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Again with this.

Just, can you provide any documentation showing anyone ever thought the coelacanth was a transition between fish and amphibians? Anything at all? Because I've never heard anyone say that, ever. I think you're confusing it with Tiktaalik.

Sure, found it as easily as you could have, had you bothered to do your claimed research before opening your mouth.

Evolution of the Coelacanth Saga


"For Agassiz, the coelacanth fossil record pointed to “a correspondence between the succession of Fishes [evolution of fishes] in geological times”. Reflecting on Agassiz findings, Charles Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species: “this doctrine of Agassiz accords well with the theory of natural selection.”

At the time, the coelacanth was thought to be a species bridging the transition of life from water to land. This conclusion was primarily based on the limb-like structure of the fins; a structure on the way up from a fin for swimming and a foot for walking. The coelacanth was touted as fossil record “missing link” evidence for evolution.


The coelacanth was embedded into biology text books as the “missing link” evidence for evolution."


Don't try that misdirection scam. Fairie Dust doesn't work as a belief system.

And what do you mean 'until we found one'? When have creationists ever found anything?

We don't need to, your proving it for us, you just won't admit to the truth. Yet. But soon you will have no more excuse for ignoring the science. Soon those bushes are going to overwhelm your tree as it slowly falls apart and shows it isn't a tree, but kind after kind. That's what advancements in technology and actual experiments do, show your Fairie Dust for what it is.

Your "FAITH" is indeed strong!!!!!

And still trying to pass that PR off as reality.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coelacanth

"Members of an extinct suborder are considered to have been the ancestors of land vertebrates"

http://www.evolutionsbiologie.uni-konstanz.de/files/resourcesmodule/@random4315594f62745/1125472666_R002.pdf

Shall I go find some more for you, or are you done ignoring reality yet?

 

[Vergil10]

Evolution of the Coelacanth Saga

your source there also claims evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, it also claims that the second law deals with an open system. while in fact the second law deals with a isolated system. it also appears to be a site about an anti-evolution book, written by a Mr. Richard william Nelson. in fact this website has quite a few quote mines.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

your source there also claims evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, it also claims that the second law deals with an open system. while in fact the second law deals with a isolated system. it also appears to be a site about an anti-evolution book, written by a Mr. Richard william Nelson. in fact this website has quite a few quote mines.

I notice you didn't want to attempt to attack Origin of Species where Darwin agreed, or Webster Dictionary or the Quarterly Review of Biology. We were talking about the Coelacanth being mistakenly portrayed in science books about being a transitional species, ("Just, can you provide any documentation showing anyone ever thought the coelacanth was a transition between fish and amphibians? Anything at all?") not any theory of violation of thermodynamics. What would that have to do with it, since clearly you require that energetic lightning to have started it all, to which I agree????

That energetic activity that holds the very atom and genetic code together? So why would I, just because another does, dismiss that as a requirement? He's no more right about why you mistakenly had it as a false transitory species than you are it was never considered such.

I told you, I protest Fairie Dust in all forms, but why did someone feel so compelled to argue a point if you never once taught it and thought it? You were asking for proof it was once believed and taught, not that I agree with their story of Fairie Dust any more than I do with yours.

Make up your mind what you are asking for. I for one know NOTHING is an isolated system. Even galaxies are connected together by filamentary plasma and electric currents in it. By magical Dark Matter in your theory that is electrically neutral, but now is blamed for UV emissions. So why would "I" think that anything is isolated?

Don't try to switch the subject. You asked for papers showing it was once taught that it was a transitional link. So if you have been wrong with about every one of them you claim were, what makes you think they have anything else right????

Mainstream's entire tree is beginning to come crashing down around them. They are like a drowning man gasping for his last breath. Making claims that as technology advances shatters every claim, one by one.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Uh, what? The coelacanth wasn't thought to be a transitional species, and yes Darwin isn't perfect, so what if everything he wrote didn't turn out to be correct, he had far more limited knowledge and tools than we do today. The coelacanth is important as a Lazarus taxan, and as a living fossil in that its body type is found in creatures from hundreds of millions of years ago.

 

[lifepsyop]

Do you see what you just did there? You were given an opportunity to discuss a concrete prediction by a biologist in detail, and you retreated into vague generalities. As I've said before, creationists hate data, especially genetic data. They'd rather talk about almost anything else.

That's pretty funny considering you've had the opportunity but have refused to provide details of this "prediction" after pages of only vaguely alluding to its existence. And you accuse me of being obtuse. Spit it out already.

You also failed to answer the question: can you find any creationist who will make a similar concrete prediction? Yes or no?

Similar to what? You haven't even described your "prediction". And trying to shift the focus to creationists is just an attempt to distract from focusing on the issue of ToE's scientific merits. (or lack thereof)

I believe you also never told me: are you willing to defend the Kondrashov model or not?

It's fairly irrelevant to my thesis here, so it's not a huge priority of mine, but seeing as how you won't address any of my main arguments, feel free to present your case on the Kondrashov material. I would be most interested in any literature that openly acknowledges the problem and claims to solve it without dodging the issue by presupposing populations have existed for millions of years like Loudmouth's reference did.