Evolution's Brick Wall

[Kenny'sID]

Sure, I never said otherwise. My point is that you are the one in charge of changing your own mind about something, nobody else.

Not the way it's working here...some of you are constantly trying to change our mind. Quit pushing your evolution on a site where many don't believe it, then some of us can go on about our business without having to waste our time in defense.

Meaning, at least in part, I have no reason to bother changing my mind anymore than I do about a flat earth over the sphere. I'm satisfied with what I believe just as you are. Are you going to bother changing your mind? If someone could come up with some obvious proof positive for evolution, then sure, but thus far, no one has even come close. Just look at the pictured fossil record posted on this thread, things like that don't help your case at all..anyone can see it means nothing.

It's possible to learn about a subject without necessarily agreeing with it.

I have and do not, yet you automatically insist I haven't learned enough if I don't agree. I've learned all I need to in order to draw my conclusion

 

[Job 33:6]

@ KomatiiteBIF
@ Jimmy D
Well, I spent an hour of my life watching his presupposed macro evolutionary model being sold. Yes, he’s a biology expert who can find Devonian rock; yes, he found a very strange fish (I would venture to guess there were a lot of strange creatures 375 million years ago). And, due to his expertise he can articulate quite a fill-in the gaps picture of his proposed fish to tetrapod transition, even if it’s just with a fish that can do push-ups.

I bet there has been more digging on that Arctic Island in the last ten years than there was in the California gold rush. Where’s all the ‘a little more’ and ‘a little less’ transitioned Tic Tacs if that is such fertile ground for evidence? The gigantic jump from a fish doing push-ups to one that can walk, to me anyway, is still ridiculous. As I said, he just presupposes macro evolution and makes everything fit that model. Right off the bat in his introduction, it was said that because his find had similar features to land animals it represents the transition from fish to land animals... so much for open-mindedness.

You guys are right, I don’t need to be in this argument, but I don’t think you do either. I’ve never claimed to be an authority, what’s really embarrassing is that you’ve hung your hat on another flash-in-the-pan find that has gone nowhere as far as proving macro evolution. Or maybe you're all satisfied with just collecting, what you call, evidence. That presentation is almost ten years old.

You're still just criticising the science without addressing how the prediction was made.

As I've said before and I'll say again. It's not just a fish, it has both tetrapod and fish traits. And it isn't a purely random find either. If the fossil succession were random, we would be finding reptiles before amphibians and birds before reptiles and mammals before reptiles and flowering plants before seeded plants and shelled organisms before soft bodied organisms and vertebrates before invertebrates etc.

It's not random at all, it's exactly what evolution predicts it should be and it identically matches patters found in our DNA. Which all only makes sense if macro evolution is true.

If you have nothing more to contribute, then yes, you probably shouldn't be in this conversation.

If you would like, we can also talk about other transitional fossils and we can discuss why they too support macro evolution just as the prediction of tiktaalik does.

 

[inquiring mind]

You're still just criticising the science without addressing how the prediction was made.
If you have nothing to contribute, then yes, you probably shouldn't be in this conversation.

As I said, if you have nothing more than what you've been re-hashing for twenty pages, you shouldn't be in it either.

 

[Job 33:6]

As I said, if you have nothing more than what you've been re-hashing for twenty pages, you shouldn't be in it either.

We have hundreds of transitionals that support macro evolution just as tiktaalik does. Would you like me to talk about another?

 

[inquiring mind]

We have hundreds of transitionals that support macro evolution just as tiktaalik does. Would you like me to talk about another?

Talk all you want... just please don't address any posts to me unless it contains proof of macro evolution.

 

[pitabread]

Not the way it's working here...some of you are constantly trying to change our mind. Quit pushing your evolution on a site where many don't believe it, then some of us can go on about our business without having to waste our time in defense.

Er, did you fail to notice the title of this sub-forum?

If you don't want to hear about evolution, why are you here?

Meaning, at least in part, I have no reason to bother changing my mind anymore than I do about a flat earth over the sphere. I'm satisfied with what I believe just as you are. Are you going to bother changing your mind? If someone could come up with some obvious proof positive for evolution, then sure, but thus far, no one has even come close.

And this is going right back to the whole "prove evolution to me" bit. Which as I said, isn't the right approach to learning about the subject.

I have and do not, yet you automatically insist I haven't learned enough if I don't agree. I've learned all I need to in order to draw my conclusion

I don't feel you understand evolution because you have done nothing to indicate you do understand it. Especially when claiming there is no evidence to support it, which there definitely is (because otherwise, the scientific theory of evolution wouldn't exist). But you can certainly come to understand the evidence for the theory of evolution without necessarily agreeing with the theory of evolution.

 

[pitabread]

Talk all you want... just please don't address any posts to me unless it contains proof of macro evolution.

You appear to have fallen into the same trap as Kenny'sID. Evolution will never be proved to you because that's not what scientific theories are about.

 

[Job 33:6]

Because not all Europeans came over, that's why. But if the species known as Apes evolved into humans, there shouldn't be apes just as there isn't the pre-evolutionary versions of pretty much all animals.

Apes are not a species. Problem solved. "Apes" encompass many species. A chimpanzee is an app, an orangutan is an app, a gorilla is an app etc. Mankind is just one species of ape. And not all apes of the past became mankind. Some became gorillas, some baboons, some lemurs etc.

Mankind is a sub group, much like pilgrams are a sub group of Europeans. Pilgrams came to America but that doesn't mean that all Europeans came to America. One species of ape became human, but that doesn't mean that all species of ape became human.

 

[Ophiolite]

KomatiiteBIF is correct, you really have no business attempting to debate the topic if you are so ignorant of something like Shubin’s work.

And to imply that he is being less than honest after the effort he’s gone to to attempt to explain it to you?

It’s embarrassing.

It's much more than embarrassing, Jimmy D. It is disgraceful.

The only explanation I can come up with to preserve a shred of integrity for inquiring mind is as follows.
This, as we know, is a collission of two world views. Inquiring mind believes evolution has yet to be demonstrated. The scientific community, in toto and in contrast, has accepted evolution for much more than a century. In consequence the professional publications on evolutionary matters rarely say, since it is superfluous, this is how this discovery demonstrates evolution. Unfortunately, inquiring mind demands this be done, since - from his perspective - evolution has yet to be "proven".

It's a pretty weak excuse for such reprehensible behaviour, but it's the best I've got.

 

[Job 33:6]

umm....no, a group of apes branched off from the main group and became eventually humans.

Here is a better anology, if dogs came from wolf kind, how come there are still wolves. Evolution doesn't expect everything to evolve upward, we evolved from fish and bacteria, there are still fish and bacteria around. Heck how would any ancetral kind evolve into anything but 1 species by your concept.

Evolution deniers will always contradict themselves. But they will never openly admit it.

 

[inquiring mind]

It's much more than embarrassing, Jimmy D. It is disgraceful.

The only explanation I can come up with to preserve a shred of integrity for inquiring mind is as follows.
This, as we know, is a collission of two world views. Inquiring mind believes evolution has yet to be demonstrated. The scientific community, in toto and in contrast, has accepted evolution for much more than a century. In consequence the professional publications on evolutionary matters rarely say, since it is superfluous, this is how this discovery demonstrates evolution. Unfortunately, inquiring mind demands this be done, since - from his perspective - evolution has yet to be "proven".

It's a pretty weak excuse for such reprehensible behaviour, but it's the best I've got.

I see why you guys never get tired in your tit-for-tat argumentative style. When one of you gets bested, you just hand the ball off to one of the many others who have went ‘all in’ on the idea of macro evolution before they understood that it wasn’t actually proven. Now after seeing that it just can’t be put over the goal line, you’re always scrambling for descriptive terms like ‘well supported, evidence of, demonstrated, and superfluous,’ and you have no choice but to all-out defend your self-proclaimed superior intellect in the matter by challenging the aptitude and integrity of those who have seen all along what a ridiculous idea macro evolution is.

 

[AV1611VET]

*

CHA - CHING!!!

 

[Speedwell]

I see why you guys never get tired in your tit-for-tat argumentative style. When one of you gets bested, you just hand the ball off to one of the many others who have went ‘all in’ on the idea of macro evolution before they understood that it wasn’t actually proven. Now after seeing that it just can’t be put over the goal line, you’re always scrambling for descriptive terms like ‘well supported, evidence of, demonstrated, and superfluous,’ and you have no choice but to all-out defend your self-proclaimed superior intellect in the matter by challenging the aptitude and integrity of those who have seen all along what a ridiculous idea macro evolution is.

Another sports metaphor. I don't think you know how science works. It's not a contest, just a means of acquiring and categorizing knowledge. The object is not to "win" but to learn.

 

[VirOptimus]

I see why you guys never get tired in your tit-for-tat argumentative style. When one of you gets bested, you just hand the ball off to one of the many others who have went ‘all in’ on the idea of macro evolution before they understood that it wasn’t actually proven. Now after seeing that it just can’t be put over the goal line, you’re always scrambling for descriptive terms like ‘well supported, evidence of, demonstrated, and superfluous,’ and you have no choice but to all-out defend your self-proclaimed superior intellect in the matter by challenging the aptitude and integrity of those who have seen all along what a ridiculous idea macro evolution is.

Science is never ”proven”. Learn the basics.

 

[DogmaHunter]

@ KomatiiteBIF
@ Jimmy D
Well, I spent an hour of my life watching his presupposed macro evolutionary model being sold. Yes, he’s a biology expert who can find Devonian rock; yes, he found a very strange fish (I would venture to guess there were a lot of strange creatures 375 million years ago). And, due to his expertise he can articulate quite a fill-in the gaps picture of his proposed fish to tetrapod transition, even if it’s just with a fish that can do push-ups.

Misrepresenting the actual science;
Attempt at ridicule;
Accusation of deception on the part of the scientist.

I bet there has been more digging on that Arctic Island in the last ten years than there was in the California gold rush.

Straight up inventing reasons to make yourself feel justified in continuing to reject the science.

Where’s all the ‘a little more’ and ‘a little less’ transitioned Tic Tacs if that is such fertile ground for evidence? The gigantic jump from a fish doing push-ups to one that can walk, to me anyway, is still ridiculous

Ignoring the evidence;
Complaining that the gap filled by this predicted transitional now created two more gaps.

Classic creationist denial.

As I said, he just presupposes macro evolution and makes everything fit that model.

This presupposition allowed him to accuratly predict both the locality as well as the specific feature set of this fossil. How it is possible that a so-called false presupposition allows for accurate predictions about the world remains completely unaddressed.

Right off the bat in his introduction, it was said that because his find had similar features to land animals it represents the transition from fish to land animals... so much for open-mindedness.

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.......................

If life started in the sea and then migrated to land....................
Then obviously there would have to be a transition from sea life to land life.
ie, you would have to have organisms that have BOTH sea life features as well as land life features.

So yea...... a fish with land animal features pretty much is exactly what we expect to find, if ancient fish evolved into land animals.

That's the whole point of a transitional.

You guys are right, I don’t need to be in this argument, but I don’t think you do either. I’ve never claimed to be an authority, what’s really embarrassing is that you’ve hung your hat on another flash-in-the-pan find

Dishonesty about the nature of the find.
Total disregard that both the location as well as the feature set was predicted ahead of time. The fact that this remains unaddresses, says volumes.

FYI: the entire point of giving the example was exactly that: for you to address/explain how it is possible that scientists can makes such incredible accurate predictions about where to find such fossils with such and such features, if they base those predictions on a FALSE model of reality.

Any time you wish to address the actual point............

that has gone nowhere as far as proving macro evolution.

Scientific theories are never proven, only supported.
The tiktaalik find, along with every other fossil ever found, supports evolution theory.

Or maybe you're all satisfied with just collecting, what you call, evidence. That presentation is almost ten years old.

How is finding a specific fossil by prediction, not evidence in favor of the idea on which the prediction is based????????

 

[tas8831]

Heissonear?

Still waiting, fella! Show us all your amazing paleontological skills!

Here is how I know that you are not honest when you talk about your amazing 'science' background -

1. You do not understand the relationship between genotype and phenotype
2. You do not even understand extant morphology:

Tell us all what that is. Tell us what it looks like in a living organism.

You don't even know what to look for in the fossil record, yet here you are pontificating.

Read this.

You are hiding a whole lot by inserting conjecture about molecular level events.

Proof of evolution should be plainly be shown in the fossil record.

We should be able to observe the fossil record and see the bit by bit morphological changes clearly seeing one creature transformed into another creature, and the morphological detailed changes in the fossil crestures inbetween. /quote]
See above.

Why do you post conjecture based molecular level conclusions.

That you cannot understand the impact of molecular biology is obvious to all but yourself, it seems.

You continue to make a fool of yourself with your pompous proclamations on these subjects, yet you either cannot see it, or you refuse to.

So, keep up the good work! I need archive material for my students to tear apart.

 

[tas8831]

Misrepresenting the actual science;
Attempt at ridicule;
Accusation of deception on the part of the scientist.



Straight up inventing reasons to make yourself feel justified in continuing to reject the science.




Ignoring the evidence;
Complaining that the gap filled by this predicted transitional now created two more gaps.

Classic creationist denial.




This presupposition allowed him to accuratly predict both the locality as well as the specific feature set of this fossil. How it is possible that a so-called false presupposition allows for accurate predictions about the world remains completely unaddressed.




Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.......................

If life started in the sea and then migrated to land....................
Then obviously there would have to be a transition from sea life to land life.
ie, you would have to have organisms that have BOTH sea life features as well as land life features.

So yea...... a fish with land animal features pretty much is exactly what we expect to find, if ancient fish evolved into land animals.

That's the whole point of a transitional.



Dishonesty about the nature of the find.
Total disregard that both the location as well as the feature set was predicted ahead of time. The fact that this remains unaddresses, says volumes.

FYI: the entire point of giving the example was exactly that: for you to address/explain how it is possible that scientists can makes such incredible accurate predictions about where to find such fossils with such and such features, if they base those predictions on a FALSE model of reality.

Any time you wish to address the actual point............



Scientific theories are never proven, only supported.
The tiktaalik find, along with every other fossil ever found, supports evolution theory.




How is finding a specific fossil by prediction, not evidence in favor of the idea on which the prediction is based????????

Their desperation and invincible ignorance is something to behold. As is their Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have and do not, yet you automatically insist I haven't learned enough if I don't agree.

We don't tell you that because you don't agree. We instead tell you that because every post you make about the topic shows how deeply rooted your ignorance is concerning evolution.

Perhaps you read stuff and perhaps you learned from it. But whatever the topic was, it certainly wasn't evolution. The things you get wrong are really really basic.

I've learned all I need to in order to draw my conclusion

lol, owkay then.

 

[DogmaHunter]

As I said, if you have nothing more than what you've been re-hashing for twenty pages, you shouldn't be in it either.

The only reason we keep repeating it for 20 pages, is because it remains unaddressed for 20 pages.

Why move on to another example, if the first example keeps on being completely ignored?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Talk all you want... just please don't address any posts to me unless it contains proof of macro evolution.

1. science doesn't deal in "proof"
2. every single transitional supports macro evolution - in the same way that tiktaalik supports it.

Which is a way you still haven't addressed.

You keep inventing stuff and misrepresenting the science in a seemingly desperate attempt at not addressing it.


Do try to do better.

Here's the question again:

How is it possible that science can accurately predict where to find which fossil, BEFORE finding it, if the predictions are based on a false model of reality?