If Evolution is true, why are human adaptations not ubiquitous?

[SLP]

Gained tenure at Whitworth college.



(career army)



"He has taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford University, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. He was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES) in France."



Tenured at Lehigh University



Professor at Yale

It seems your statement that people's salaries depend on believing evolution is false. On the flip side, we know that many fundamentalist schools do require signing statements of belief - a contradiction of academic freedom. It is the creationists who know their salaries depend on denial of evolution.

The creationist projects.

 

[SLP]

Evolution is mathematically impossible.

Since you make this proclamation with such confidence, I am truly perplexed as to why you were incapable of supporting it with clear, understandable, valid mathematics.

Perhaps we should conclude that this, like most creationist claims, is just made up nonsense?

 

[Aussie Pete]

Since you make this proclamation with such confidence, I am truly perplexed as to why you were incapable of supporting it with clear, understandable, valid mathematics.

Perhaps we should conclude that this, like most creationist claims, is just made up nonsense?

A pointless exercise. Some of the greatest scientists have already demonstrated that truth. If I thought that evolutionists would address the issues instead of ridiculing anyone who dares to disagree, I'd post the evidence. So far I have had few address the actual problems of evolution. When I look at new finds in fossil evidence, I read such "scientific" statements as "likely", "possibly", "it seems" all from a preconceived notion that evolution is demonstrably fact.

 

[Speedwell]

A pointless exercise. Some of the greatest scientists have already demonstrated that truth. If I thought that evolutionists would address the issues instead of ridiculing anyone who dares to disagree, I'd post the evidence. So far I have had few address the actual problems of evolution. When I look at new finds in fossil evidence, I read such "scientific" statements as "likely", "possibly", "it seems" all from a preconceived notion that evolution is demonstrably fact.

I would like to know the names of some of those great scientists. I was always under the impression that the mathematics of stochastic processes was on pretty firm ground. If great scientists have found fault with it, give us a link or two. I don't expect you to defend the assertion yourself, since fully understanding the mathematics of evolution is pretty hard for anyone without at least undergraduate schooling n the subject.

 

[SLP]

A pointless exercise. Some of the greatest scientists have already demonstrated that truth.

I will ignore your fallacious appeal to authority, but I have never seen a legitimate attempt at this kind of thing. I have seen claims that one has done such calculations, but the calculations are never presented for some reason.

Surely, as it so impressed you, you can show me where to look for it?

If I thought that evolutionists would address the issues instead of ridiculing anyone who dares to disagree, I'd post the evidence.

No you wouldn't.

So far I have had few address the actual problems of evolution.

I have not seen you present an actual bit of evidence for anything - you repeat creationist tropes, this is true.

You seem to think that any old 'disagreement', regardless of merit, needs to be taken seriously; also that pointing out the errors in your claims is ridicule. This is incorrect.

If I stated that I disagreed with Christianity because it relies on a 50 foot tall blue guy with 6 arms, would you think I knew much about Christianity? That my 'disagreement' should be taken seriously?

When I look at new finds in fossil evidence, I read such "scientific" statements as "likely", "possibly", "it seems" all from a preconceived notion that evolution is demonstrably fact.

Great conclusion.

So it is the extent of the certainty in the language that bothers you?

And not the fact that your creationist sources fudge their numbers, embellish their credentials and their 'evidence', use out of context quotes as evidence, etc.?

Interesting.

So, no actual math, just some creationist's say-so. Got it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A pointless exercise. Some of the greatest scientists have already demonstrated that truth. If I thought that evolutionists would address the issues instead of ridiculing anyone who dares to disagree, I'd post the evidence. So far I have had few address the actual problems of evolution. When I look at new finds in fossil evidence, I read such "scientific" statements as "likely", "possibly", "it seems" all from a preconceived notion that evolution is demonstrably fact.

Evolution (the change in genetic composition of populations over time) is observed fact, both in the lab and in the wild. The Theory of Evolution is, as its name suggests, a scientific theory - it's the best explanation for our observations of the diversity of life, well tested, making fruitful predictions, and supported by multiple independent lines of evidence. Nevertheless, it is open to revision, extension, and falsification; the latest revision under consideration being called the 'Extended Evolutionary Synthesis'.

The 'likely', 'possibly' and 'it seems...' with regard to the fossil evidence generally concerns the precise relationships between species, the adaptive function of observed traits, etc. When you have only a few snapshots over time of related species, it's not possible to say with certainty what their precise relationships are, and it's not possible to say with certainty what the adaptive function of, for example, filamentary feathers was. In both situations, it is usually possible to make informed estimates and educated guesses about such details, hence the qualifications.

 

[VirOptimus]

A pointless exercise. Some of the greatest scientists have already demonstrated that truth. If I thought that evolutionists would address the issues instead of ridiculing anyone who dares to disagree, I'd post the evidence. So far I have had few address the actual problems of evolution. When I look at new finds in fossil evidence, I read such "scientific" statements as "likely", "possibly", "it seems" all from a preconceived notion that evolution is demonstrably fact.

We understand, you cant support your assertions. The honest thing would be to just say so.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

A pointless exercise. Some of the greatest scientists have already demonstrated that truth.

If I said I had mathematics that indicated when I drop a ball at sea level it will go up away from the earth. But then when I let go of a ball at sea level if goes toward the earth what would you conclude about the math I had? Direct observation and testing contradicts my math so it would have to be wrong.

Same with evolution. There is so much evidence for it (direct and indirect) that if someone said they have mat that falsifies evolution. What should we conclude about the math? Do you actually know the evidence that convinces scientists that evolution is happening?

 

[SLP]

A pointless exercise.

Right - asking a creationist to support an assertion is pointless.

Some of the greatest scientists have already demonstrated that truth.

What makes them the greatest?
And how do you know that their 'work' was legitimate and not premised on their religious indoctrination?

If I thought that evolutionists would address the issues instead of ridiculing anyone who dares to disagree, I'd post the evidence.

And so you have decided not to present your amazing evidence.
Typical.

So far I have had few address the actual problems of evolution.

I have seen to actual problems, just assertions premised on the rantings of professional disinformation spreaders.

When I look at new finds in fossil evidence, I read such "scientific" statements as "likely", "possibly", "it seems" all from a preconceived notion that evolution is demonstrably fact.

And when I read creationist posts, they all come from a preconceived notion that bible creation is demonstrably fact and that evolution is false.

You've got nothing.