Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[dmmesdale]

1. Our basic chemistry is the same (amino acids, bases, DNA, etc.)

There are some major differences between a banana and a human which is being ignored here.

2. Universal Common Descent (29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for nt)

Well it starts out with ''the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences,'' which is a sales pitch. Common descent was proposed by Darwin, someone made a drawing of a tree and now all the facts are fitted into the story.

One is a plant, the other is an animal. And they are both life forms.

Right and they have an unknown common ancestor which goes back to one living thing.

You mean we don't know which exact individual by name was our common ancestor? Or do you mean we don't know that we had one?

Back on page six.

BBC - Earth - We have still not found the missing link between us and apes

Because we kinda do know we had one.

Kinda know?

We share SO MUCH of our genetic make up and physiological features with other apes that really it's hard to argue against a common ancestor.

True believers have to prove their positive and not expect doubters to prove the negative. So the burden is on your side and it is coming up short. Your link is loaded, and i do not have the time to go thru it all. It is simply not possible for nature to install echo location in birds or wings on birds which enable them to fly with navigation to locations thousands of miles away. Bees do not need practice to build hives. They are programmed to know how. The reason is an intelligent programmer. That is just the tip of the iceburg.

No, it was an observation. I am always fascinated by people who are so terrified of thinking that they are related to the rest of life on earth. I'd like to understand what drives their fear.

We are on a debate forum here. Assuming fear on the part of others really is a means to demean, browbeat. I don't have time to look up the fallacy. Its really a dead end.

That's an interesting comment! So if people provide evidence for evolution you are free to heap scorn on it and act as if it isn't really evidence for anything, but when people fail to accept your evidence for God it is their problem.

By evolution i means blind watchmaker and common descent. Now we are discussing common descent.

I can live with that. I've see the evidence for God and I've see evidence for evolution. Right now I'm failing to believe that one exists while believing that the other does.

Your inward conviction in no God does not allow you to examine the overwhelming evidence rationally.

And interestingly enough: THOSE CHOICES ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE! In other words I could be a Christian who believes in evolution,

Common descent, maybe. Blind watchmaker, no.

Au contraire! In many cases atheists value human life GREATLY!

Why? How does that comport with your objective reality? If you assign value to life then that is subjective fiction.

We understand that this is our only life and everyone around us is similarly on the same journey.

So? A journey back to nothingness?

For many of us it helps us come CLOSER to our fellow humans AND VALUE ALL OUR LIVES MORE!

Fine if comforting fictions is all you have.

You don't see atheists flying planes into buildings, just sayin'.

Not lately. Even if they did then what law of nature would it violate?

Oh, I'm a nihilist! No doubt about that! I don't believe that my life has some inherent meaning other than what I make of it!

It has no inherit meaning in spite of what you make of it. In reality you are nothing more than another carbon based bag of water and a hundred years from now you will not exist and no one will care.

So, yeah, I'm a nihilist. But if you think that somehow makes me a lesser being I'd be glad to compare my morality to yours any day of the week.

Won't be necessary and life can turn on a dime. My co-worker underwent a stroke which took him out for perhaps two months. Now he is back but not the same. Speech is slow and his thinking is off. It really did him a number. We can be superficially aware but it is all different when it actually happens and they have to undergo recovery and try to move on knowing full well abilities will be lost forever. That we fall apart, little by little.

But I don't see why there should be some mystical "meaning" to our existences!

We intuitively know there is meaning and it has a source and it is not nature. You already demonstrated one fiction so your not seeing, just means another comforting fiction. At least with atheism you have an imagined autonomous free from anything invading your thought life or your every move. With Theism everything is open and laid bare. There is no privacy, no safe space.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Why? How does that comport with your objective reality?

Already answered that.

If you assign value to life then that is subjective fiction.

How so? If I am alive and I wish to avoid pain and suffering, then it is rational that being a social animal as humans are, that I will endeavor that others avoid pain and suffering.

\Won't be necessary and life can turn on a dime. My co-worker underwent a stroke which took him out for perhaps two months. Now he is back but not the same. Speech is slow and his thinking is off. It really did him a number. We can be superficially aware but it is all different when it actually happens and they have to undergo recovery and try to move on knowing full well abilities will be lost forever. That we fall apart, little by little.

Pretty dark there. Yes people have horrible things happen to them. I too have had horrible things happen to me. And yes, I understand more than many how bad things can get. Is that supposed to somehow convince me that religious faith is somehow of value to me? Hopefully you do not assume my atheism and nihilism are arrived at through some off-hand afternoon's lackadaisical consideration. I hope you do me the honor of assuming that my position on these things comes from years of soul-searching, study and thought. Because that is where it comes from.

I don't want you to lose your religious faith which is why I'm not trotting out sad stories about people I know to make some opaque point to you. And believe it or not I actually can see the value that religious faith brings to people. I have almost exclusively Christian friends. So perhaps you could learn from this to attempt to understand what other people who may not agree with you actually think and feel instead of trying to explain to them how they cannot have morality or cannot find value in a human life because they don't share your particular sect's faith.

 

[Dirk1540]

It is, but creationists do not understand what the word "observed" means either.

I can surely tell you what observed doesn't mean, we've never observed anything that happened thousands/millions of years ago (apes to man). It started off that we don't understand what evolution is, now we don't know what the word observed means.

Yep, pretty hard to beat an asteroid that killed all of the dinosaurs.

An asteroid? I said humans are the most destructive species on Earth towards mother nature.

Are you sure about that, or perhaps pointed out that your definition of "intelligence" might not mean to much to a dolphin, or a chimpanzee. They each have their own sort of intelligence. Sometimes it is very difficult to compare apples and oranges.

I'm referring to our creative ability to change our situations. If you did a documentary on the past 5,000 years all the mammal, fish life, etc, you would find basically the same exact thing over & over for 5,000 years. Humans on the other hand are all over the map, experimenting and inventing like crazy. Not to mention we are complete train wrecks unlike anything else. We are the only species that mother nature gave rise to, that does nothing but destroy mother nature. From an evolution stand point we don't make sense, the only way we make sense is if there were at least a few other species out their acting half as disrespectful to nature as we do. What other species has heroin addicts lol...oh I'm sorry there are rats addicted to heroin, oh wait that's because of us too lol. What other species wants to go to Mars? Dial that back, what other land animal even wants to fly? What other species cares about the meaning of life? What other specie has food, shelter, a mate, etc, but commits suicide for a shallow reason? The list just goes on. [/QUOTE]

It can be. Some species will evolve faster than others, birth rate, environmental pressures, other factors, but 200 years for speciation in some squirrels seems beyond what I have ever heard of. Do you have more details?

What I'm driving at, and this is even me the former atheist speaking too because it baffled me back then, is that humans have been geographically separated on 7 separate continents for thousands of years, I believe the estimate for homo sapiens is 100,000 years. We've nearly been in every single habitat there is. Well a problem I always had then is how every human on the planet can still visit the same doctor because they have the same physiological makeup. Having said that however, THERE HAS BEEN evolution inside of the human specie. For instance different locales have developed different degrees of lactose tolerances just to name one random example. But then it's not even just humans. We have been, like idiots, relocating other species to other locations for thousands of years (another favor to mother nature) and disruption the predator/prey balance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can surely tell you what observed doesn't mean, we've never observed anything that happened thousands/millions of years ago (apes to man). It started off that we don't understand what evolution is, now we don't know what the word observed means.

Wrong, you may have never observed something that happened millions to billions of years ago, that does not mean that others have not. You have too limited of a definition of "observed". And yes, you do not know what "observed" means in a scientific sense.

Creationists make too much of observing in the present and observing in the past. What you do not realize is that ALL observations of events are events that occurred in the past. The speed of light is so rapid that you are fooled into the artificial concept of "simultaneity". When it comes to light whether looking at something very close, a nanosecond to microsecond difference. Something happening on the Moon, a second and a half (roughly) difference. Observing sunlight, an event that occurred eight minutes ago. Looking at stars, looking at events that occurred a minimum of four years ago. Or even the nearest galaxy, in which case you are looking at events 2.5 million years ago, you are always observing in the past.

We can observe evolution in the fossil record and in DNA. You may not understand that sort of observation, but it is still "observation".

An asteroid? I said humans are the most destructive species on Earth towards mother nature.

Why limit it to humans?

I'm referring to our creative ability to change our situations. If you did a documentary on the past 5,000 years all the mammal, fish life, etc, you would find basically the same exact thing over & over for 5,000 years. Humans on the other hand are all over the map, experimenting and inventing like crazy. Not to mention we are complete train wrecks unlike anything else. We are the only species that mother nature gave rise to, that does nothing but destroy mother nature. From an evolution stand point we don't make sense, the only way we make sense is if there were at least a few other species out their acting half as disrespectful to nature as we do. What other species has heroin addicts lol...oh I'm sorry there are rats addicted to heroin, oh wait that's because of us too lol. What other species wants to go to Mars? Dial that back, what other land animal even wants to fly? What other species cares about the meaning of life? What other specie has food, shelter, a mate, etc, but commits suicide for a shallow reason? The list just goes on.

You do realize that life on the Earth is billions of years old, don't you?

And we don't "destroy" mother nature. We do affect it heavily. But we create new opportunities for all sorts of species, at the same time we are eliminating species. Yes, as one species we are probably responsible for the death of more species than any other, but I do not see how that is so hard to undersand.

What I'm driving at, and this is even me the former atheist speaking too because it baffled me back then, is that humans have been geographically separated on 7 separate continents for thousands of years, I believe the estimate for homo sapiens is 100,000 years. We've nearly been in every single habitat there is. Well a problem I always had then is how every human on the planet can still visit the same doctor because they have the same physiological makeup. Having said that however, THERE HAS BEEN evolution inside of the human specie. For instance different locales have developed different degrees of lactose tolerances just to name one random example. But then it's not even just humans. We have been, like idiots, relocating other species to other locations for thousands of years (another favor to mother nature) and disruption the predator/prey balance.

Yes, we have not been wise. I don't see how that affects the theory of evolution at all. And the longest separation between any two groups of humans is less than 20,000 years. Or about 1,000 generations. If you want to learn why speciation has not occurred you should find a biologist that specializes in that.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I've been told common decent is observed all the time.

I noticed the guy in the video was assuming common decent a fact in his explanation, something we would have to assume as well for him to be correct.

Last conversation I had about it, it didn't pan out fro me, but either way, I'd guess I could go online right now and find some fantastic refutes to it. Then of course, these people will make the claim there is always some disagreeing nut as if there are only a very few that don't buy evolution when that is far from true. A common, wrong claim.

That reminds me, evolutionist tend to overstate many things terribly when discussing the issue, but makes sense they would I suppose, deep down they know they need all the help they can get.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I noticed the guy in the video was assuming common decent a fact in his explanation, something we would have to assume as well for him to be correct.

Oh my! That is like complaining that a math teacher assumed that 2 + 2 = 4 in a math lesson. Too bad that you did not pay attention or understand. He explained how we can know that common descent is a fact.

Last conversation I had about it, it didn't pan out fro me, but either way, I'd guess I could go online right now and find some fantastic refutes to it. Then of course, these people will make the claim there is always some disagreeing nut as if there are only a very few that don't buy evolution when that is far from true. A common, wrong claim.

That tends to happen when you are obviously wrong, as you are, and obviously ignorant, again as you are on this topic. And no, you will not find any "fantastic refutes to it". Sorry, all you will find are ignorant fools that do make the same errors that you do. I offered to help you understand the parts that were too difficult for you. Why didn't you take me up on my offer?

That reminds me, evolutionist tend to overstate many things terribly when discussing the issue, but makes sense they would I suppose, deep down they know they need all the help they can get.

How so? The fact that you won't let yourself learn does not mean that anything was "overstated".

Kenny, you are clearly not an idiot. You can learn if you want to. The sad thing is that your fear is keeping you from learning. You end up not looking very good because of your fear.

Running away is never the answer.

 

[xianghua]

No offense but your example makes no sense. There is no reason to assume one developed out of the other.

the same can be said for animals: there is no reason to assume that they evolved from each other without any evidence that its possible.

And here you show the problem with your original example: we KNOW cars are designed by people because we are people and we see people who are car designers. Life has no such data to support it.

not realy. first: check the evidence i gave here:

My favorite argument for the existence of God

secondly: we dont know that animals evolved from each other too.

Cars DO NOT SELF-REPLICATE, Cars do NOT HAVE A MECHANISM BY WHICH MUTATIONS CAN OCCUR, Cars DO have a means of filtering out maladaptive variants (crashes, general failure to operate, market dislike, etc.) But that's really the only thing that would be similar to biological evolution.

so a car that do have all those traits will not consider by you as a design product?

As such, right now the odds are such that you are WRONG about the age of the rock at the very least.

again: no, they can claim that a mammal evolved twice. very simple.

 

[xianghua]

You could arrange those vehicles in such an hierarchy arbitrarily, but if you actually studied the historical development of the motor vehicle you would discover that the first powered vehicle was a truck, the second was a bus and the jeep not developed for another 150 years, well after both the car and the truck. The development of the motor vehicle does not exhibit a nested hierarchy--which designed objects generally do not--and the jeep is not a developmental transitional between a car and a truck.

first: there is no nested hierarchy in nature too.

secondly: as far as i remember we can arrange some vehicles even by a chronological order. but again; it doesnt prove any evolution.

 

[xianghua]

What's the support for this explanation?

check this one:

My favorite argument for the existence of God

 

[Speedwell]

first: there is no nested hierarchy in nature too.

secondly: as far as i remember we can arrange some vehicles even by a chronological order. but again; it doesnt prove any evolution.

Assuming that you do it arbitrarily and without much knowledge of the subject, as you did with motor vehicles. But that's not how evolutionary biologists do it.

 

[Speedwell]

check this one:

My favorite argument for the existence of God

In which you continue to advance the erroneous notion that somehow design can be detected in an object on the basis of functional complexity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

the same can be said for animals: there is no reason to assume that they evolved from each other without any evidence that its possible.

But we do have evidence that supports evolution. You, as noted in other posts, do not even understand the process.

not realy. first: check the evidence i gave here:

My favorite argument for the existence of God

secondly: we dont know that animals evolved from each other too.

Your failed argument is not "evidence". And you may not know how animals evolved. That does not mean that others do not know.

so a car that do have all those traits will not consider by you as a design product?[/qoute]

Your failure in this argument has been explained to you countless times.

again: no, they can claim that a mammal evolved twice. very simple.

Nope, evolution is a "one way street". Only those that do not understand evolution conflate "convergent evolution" with something evolving twice. They are not even close to being the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

first: there is no nested hierarchy in nature too.

secondly: as far as i remember we can arrange some vehicles even by a chronological order. but again; it doesnt prove any evolution.

LOL!! Amazingly wrong. Not only are there nested hierarchies. There are independent nested hierarchies that confirm the theory of evolution.

 

[xianghua]

Natural selection one of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs: Natural selection - Wikipedia

natural selection is true even if creation is true. therefore natural selection isnt an evidence for evolution.

 

[xianghua]

Not only are there nested hierarchies. There are independent nested hierarchies that confirm the theory of evolution.

so if nested hierarchy is false (evolution is false), what we should find ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

natural selection is true even if creation is true. therefore natural selection isnt an evidence for evolution.

Actually since there are no competing theories or hypotheses observed natural selection is evidence for evolution. You need a testable hypothesis for creationism at the very least to make your claim and we know that the purveyors of that nonsense are too afraid to put their nonsense to the test.

 

[Subduction Zone]

such as?

Please, I just pointed an instance out to you yesterday. Do you expect me to keep a book of your errors for you?

 

[xianghua]

1. Our basic chemistry is the same (amino acids, bases, DNA, etc.)

so a car and a truck that made from the same basic components are evidence for evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

so a car and a truck that made from the same basic components are evidence for evolution?

Nope. But thanks for confirming my earlier claim that you do not even understand the basics of this science.

 

[pitabread]

natural selection is true even if creation is true. therefore natural selection isnt an evidence for evolution.

*sigh*

I never said that natural selection is "evidence". I said it is one of the mechanisms by which evolution operates. And the peppered moths experiments are evidence of natural selection in action.

 

[Subduction Zone]

*sigh*

I never said that natural selection is "evidence". I said it is one of the mechanisms by which evolution operates. And the peppered moths experiments are evidence of natural selection in action.

I was going to point out that error of his too. But the fact that there is no hypothesis of creationism technically means that it is still scientific evidence for the theory of evolution.