Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[xianghua]

Your failed argument is not "evidence".

so a self replicating robot isnt evidence for design? good to know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so a self replicating robot isnt evidence for design? good to know.

Something that does not exist cannot be evidence.

Another concept that you do not understand.

And it would only be evidence for the design of the robot even if it existed. You really don't understand the concept of evidence at all.

 

[xianghua]

*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.

you may said it here:

"But the Peppered Moths as evidence for evolution is not a fraud. It's a valid example of natural selection"

means natural selection as evidence for evolution. or you refer to the change itself? even so this change isnt evolution but a variation. the moth is still a moth.

 

[pitabread]

you may said it here:

"But the Peppered Moths as evidence for evolution is not a fraud. It's a valid example of natural selection"

I was saying that the peppered moths experiments are evidence of natural selection.

means natural selection as evidence for evolution. or you refer to the change itself? even so this change isnt evolution but a variation. the moth is still a moth.

Variation of biological organisms *is* evolution. Whatever you want to call it, the underlying mechanisms are one and the same. It's all part of the theory of evolution.

Btw, do you know how many moth species there are?

 

[Subduction Zone]

you may said it here:

"But the Peppered Moths as evidence for evolution is not a fraud. It's a valid example of natural selection"

means natural selection as evidence for evolution. or you refer to the change itself? even so this change isnt evolution but a variation. the moth is still a moth.

And once again you confirm my claim. Did you forget that you posted this today:

"such as?"

Well this post of yours right here demonstrates that you do not understand even the basics of evolution.

 

[xianghua]

And once again you confirm my claim. Did you forget that you posted this today:

"such as?"

Well this post of yours right here demonstrates that you do not understand even the basics of evolution.

you may forgot to answer my question: if nested hierarchy is false (evolution is false) what we should find?

 

[Subduction Zone]

you may forgot to answer my question: if nested hierarchy is false (evolution is false) what we should find?

It is a foolish question. I don't pay attention to them. The fact is that we observe numerous independent nested hierarchies. You might as well ask:

"If falling is false (gravity is false) what should we find?"

I tend to ignore questions that have no point to them.

 

[Obliquinaut]

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

Do you think that sounds like a viable point?

 

[Obliquinaut]

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.

You mean so long as you ignore all the evidence for common descent, right?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

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

The tortured syntax of that sentence is giving me a headache, but I will attempt to answer it:

Life can very much appear "designed" because it has inherent in it systems that allow for:

1. Mutation
2. Selecting out the maladaptive mutations
3. Plenty of time to achieve these things.

That's pretty much all you need. At the end it will appear to be "designed" to work in the environment.

 

[Heissonear]

You mean so long as you ignore all the evidence for common descent, right?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent




The tortured syntax of that sentence is giving me a headache, but I will attempt to answer it:

Life can very much appear "designed" because it has inherent in it systems that allow for:

1. Mutation
2. Selecting out the maladaptive mutations
3. Plenty of time to achieve these things.

That's pretty much all you need. At the end it will appear to be "designed" to work in the environment.

Evolution has several fatal flaws. The greatest is no emperical evidence. The second is zero transition fossils out of billions of recovered fossils.

I took paleontology in college and by field geology know firsthand evolution lacks emperical proof.

All evolution falls back on is succession of higher life forms in the strata, faith required in primordial soup that formed DNA, and faith in beneficial mutations. Evolution is a belief not a fact. It takes an education in evolution to realize the faith required, with emperical evidence missing.

Thank you.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution has several fatal flaws. The greatest is no emperical evidence.

Gotta love it when a creationist replies to a post with a link to dozens of example of evidence of biological evolution with the claim there is no evidence for it.

The disconnect is real.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Evolution has several fatal flaws. The greatest is no emperical evidence.

You mean with the exception of the multitude of evidence provided in the link, right? I mean if we are just ignoring things as they become inconvenient then we can say anything!

The second is zero transition fossils out of billions of recovered fossils.

Except for the transition fossils we do find, right?
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

I took paleontology in college and by field geology know firsthand evolution lacks emperical proof.

I, too, took paleontology and did field work as well! And ironically I came to the direct opposite conclusion from you. I wonder why that is?

All evolution falls back on is succession of higher life forms in the strata, faith required in primordial soup that formed DNA, and faith in beneficial mutations.

You put abiogenesis in there. If you knew much about the topic you'd realize abiogenesis isn't related to evolution.

It's like assuming you need to know how to build a car in order to drive it.

Evolution is a belief not a fact. It takes an education in evolution to realize the faith required, with emperical evidence missing.

Again, I'm curious how you and I ended up with such opposite conclusions with the same training. I did go all the way to PhD and I saw plenty of evidence of evolution. Huh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution has several fatal flaws. The greatest is no emperical evidence. The second is zero transition fossils out of billions of recovered fossils.

I took paleontology in college and by field geology know firsthand evolution lacks emperical proof.

All evolution falls back on is succession of higher life forms in the strata, faith required in primordial soup that formed DNA, and faith in beneficial mutations. Evolution is a belief not a fact. It takes an education in evolution to realize the faith required, with emperical evidence missing.

Thank you.

Oh my! Another advocate of the Ostrich Defense. Amazing that someone that claims to be a "Geochemist and Stratigarpher" has no clue at all as to what empirical evidence is.

In case you did not now it fossils are empirical evidence.

ETA: And so many transitional fossils have been found that almost all fossils can be shown to be transitional. Either you have no clue at all as to what a transitional fossil is or you are lying. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and ascribe your error to gross ignorance.

We can go over what a transitional fossil is so that you do not make this same error again.

 

[Heissonear]

I grew up godless, not seeing any need for a god to explain things around us, past and present.

I belonged in a university geology department. It was the way I grew up seeing and learning things.

But I found zero transition fossils in Historical Geology and particularly Paleontology.

Humm.

I also learned sedimentology. The depositional environment processes, facies transitions, and the like in depth.

Need I say training/education in Evolution shows the faith required therein. Something some think they can casually brush under the rug.

I was not a "Creationist" in acquiring a clear knowledge-based understanding that Evolutions foundation is based on faith. Evolution was a faith. Even while sitting in Structural Geology and Radiometric Dating classes as a godless Naturalists I observed firsthand "faith" required by all Evolution followers. Even how some strata sequences were representative of 10 to 50 million years yet the sedimentary depositional parent material and depositional energy stayed the same, some being crossbedded sandstone over 4000 feet thick, with no change in depositional materials, source, and energy during deposition.

Need I say that the more one is educated in Evolution and Naturalism the more faith is required to keep the faith.

I have firsthand decades of experiences in Evolutionists greatly disliking to hear and know their foundation of Naturalism (natural processes explains how things have come about) is based on faith. The posters hyped up in presenting "evidence" are like many others, bully believers. Not ready to to face their foundation tenets based on faith.

Thank you!

 

[pitabread]

Need I say that the more one is educated in Evolution and Naturalism the more faith is required to keep the faith.

Uh huh.

Maybe then you can explain how evolutionary biology (esp. phylogenetics) is currently an applied science in various fields of applied biology including pharmacology, agriculture, conservation biology, etc.

I mean, when you have real world companies utilizing evolutionary biology for their work, the idea that it's all just a "faith" kinda falls apart.

The posters hyped up in presenting "evidence" are like many others, bully believers.

Ad hominem arguments will get you absolutely no where here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I grew up godless, not seeing any need for a god to explain things around us, past and present.

I belonged in a university geology department. It was the way I grew up seeing and learning things.

But I found zero transition fossils in Historical Geology and particularly Paleontology.

Then you were amazingly incompetent if that is the case. You could not even possibly know what a transitional fossil is and make this claim.

Humm.

"Humm" indeed. Your claims are the same that a person that has zero education in this area would make.

I also learned sedimentology. The depositional environment processes, facies transitions, and the like in depth.

And I am sure that your level of expertise is on the same order.

Need I say training/education in Evolution shows the faith required therein. Something some think they can casually brush under the rug.

Nope, you have that 100% backwards. Denial of evolution takes faith. When one disagrees with over 99% of all scientists in a field either they are all wrong, and they are all checking on each others work, publishing when they have a new idea and reading up on those that do the same. You on the other hand have nothing. I don't know of any sane person that would not go with the 99% that actually understand this topic.

I was not a "Creationist" in acquiring a clear knowledge-based understanding that Evolutions foundation is based on faith. Evolution was a faith. Even while sitting in Structural Geology and Radiometric Dating classes as a godless Naturalists I observed firsthand "faith" required by all Evolution followers. Even how some strata sequences were representative of 10 to 50 million years yet the sedimentary depositional parent material and depositional energy stayed the same, some being crossbedded sandstone over 4000 feet thick, with no change in depositional materials, source, and energy during deposition.

I would be greatly interested in a 4000 foot thick stratum of sandstone. Where can that be found in the world?

Link please.

Need I say that the more one is educated in Evolution and Naturalism the more faith is required to keep the faith.

Nope, the LESS one is educated. And the belief is in creationism. Evolution is supplied by massive evidence.

And your posts continually demonstrate your lack of education.

I have firsthand decades of experiences in Evolutionists greatly disliking to hear and know their foundation of Naturalism (natural processes explains how things have come about) is based on faith. The posters hyped up in presenting "evidence" are like many others, bully believers. Not ready to to face their foundation tenets based on faith.

Thank you!

And yet you can't demonstrate one lick of that supposed experience. Excuse me if I do not believe you.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I grew up godless, not seeing any need for a god to explain things around us, past and present.

I grew up with a pretty solid Christian faith. Not over-the-top or anything, middle of the road Methodist.

I belonged in a university geology department. It was the way I grew up seeing and learning things.

I had no problems with my Christianity AND old earth Geology and evolution.

But I found zero transition fossils in Historical Geology and particularly Paleontology.

So you are discounting these?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

Need I say training/education in Evolution shows the faith required therein.

I had the same training/education and it didn't really require any "faith". Just the presentation of the evidence.

Even while sitting in Structural Geology and Radiometric Dating classes as a godless Naturalists I observed firsthand "faith" required by all Evolution followers.

Do you doubt something foundational in relation to Radiometric Dating? I'd be curious how you arrived at that doubt. You are a geochemist I see, as am I by training (even though my career has been in a different part of chemistry). I'd be interested to know what part was "faith based".

Need I say that the more one is educated in Evolution and Naturalism the more faith is required to keep the faith.

You DO need to say that because it doesn't really seem to require faith on my part.

I have firsthand decades of experiences in Evolutionists greatly disliking to hear and know their foundation of Naturalism (natural processes explains how things have come about) is based on faith.

And that's probably because we don't see it as "faith". Could be because we are relying on the evidence to support our beliefs.

The posters hyped up in presenting "evidence" are like many others, bully believers.

Bullying by presenting evidence? Yeah, that's kind of harsh.

Not ready to to face their foundation tenets based on faith.

I really am curious why you think it is faith. I realize that in science faith-based stuff doesn't fly but I'm curious why someone who is now as religious as yourself would use the "faith label" as an insult. Do you feel your faith in God is unfounded? Or do you feel you have evidence? If you have evidence why do you seem to so blithely ignore the evidence the other side relies on to support their position?

 

[xianghua]

I was saying that the peppered moths experiments are evidence of natural selection.

so why you used the word "evolution"? just wondering...

Variation of biological organisms *is* evolution.

so if human get a bit taller then it's prove that evolution is true? even according to creation it's possible. so variation isnt evolution. by this logic we can say that a ca r can evolve into an airplane, because we can see variation in a car occuring naturally(its color for instance may change after several years).

 

[xianghua]

It is a foolish question. I don't pay attention to them. The fact is that we observe numerous independent nested hierarchies. You might as well ask:

"If falling is false (gravity is false) what should we find?"

I tend to ignore questions that have no point to them.

so you cant backup your claim about nested hierarchy. therefore your evidence is meaningless. you said before that nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution. so basically the opposite ( a non-nested hierarchy) should be evidence against it. and we indeed found such cases.

 

[pitabread]

so why you used the word "evolution"? just wondering...

Because natural selection is a mechanism by which evolution functions. I feel like we're just going in circles now.

My advice is to read this: Evolution - Wikipedia

And this: Natural selection - Wikipedia

Then come back to the discussion when you have a clearer handle on this topics.

so if human get a bit taller then it's prove that evolution is true? even according to creation it's possible. so variation isnt evolution. by this logic we can say that a ca r can evolve into an airplane, because we can see variation in a car occuring naturally(is color for instance may change after several years).

...

When we're talking about population genetics, genetic variation in a population and selective pressures or other mechanisms acting on that variation, then yes, we're talking about evolution. And yes, this could include traits in human populations as well.

No, this does not include cars and airplanes because those are artificially manufactured products on which evolutionary processes do not operate. Owing mainly to the fact that they are not alive.