Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[xianghua]

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

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

can you choose your favorite and we will check it?

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

.

lets say that we will find a robot that made from organic components and have a self replicating system. do you think that such a robot is evidence for design or not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Please, of course I can back up my claims. I linked a video a ton of times on this thread. It covers the topic quite well. Watch it and then we can discuss it.

Your lack of knowledge is never a weapon in a debate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

can you choose your favorite and we will check it?

How could you "evaluate" anything?

lets say that we will find a robot that made from organic components and have a self replicating system. do you think that such a robot is evidence for design or not?

Your repeated failed argument only demonstrates that you understand neither the scientific method or evidence. You really need to learn the basics so that you don't keep making such poor posts.

 

[xianghua]

Because natural selection is a mechanism by which evolution functions.

so natural selection is evidence for evolution or not?.

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.

so human stay as human (just a bit taller) is evidence for evolution?

 

[xianghua]

Please, of course I can back up my claims.

so prove it by give us an example. otherwise it will suggest that you cant provide such an example. and then you will prove that you may dont know what are you talking about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so prove it by give us an example. otherwise it will suggest that you cant provide such an example. and then you will prove my point.

Nah, not until you are honest enough to own up to one of the many mistakes of yours that have been corrected. I am ready with one as soon as you do. But if a person continually is corrected and merely repeats the same errors he is in no place to make any demands at all.

Can you be honest?

 

[pitabread]

so natural selection is evidence for evolution or not?

I already explained this: natural selection is a mechanism by which evolution functions.

Go read the Wikipedia links I posted. I feel like there is a gap in your understanding of these core concepts. If you don't understand what natural selection is, then there is little point in trying to discuss it.

so human stay as human (just a bit taller) is evidence for evolution?

Phenotypic variation driven by selective pressures is an example of evolution. So yes.

 

[GUANO]

The biggest problem has always been the lack of "missing links"...

 

[Subduction Zone]

The biggest problem has always been the lack of "missing links"...

Nope. DNA has more than made up for any "missing links". Fossils are obvious evidence for the uneducated. A "missing" fossil appears to be a problem, but in reality they are not. Fossils of land based life are very rare. Yes, there are millions of them but there have been trillions of land based organisms over the history of the Earth. Many species were not preserved at all. Nor does the theory of evolution predict that all life would be preserved.

What creationists will not deal with is the fact that every fossil found fits into the evolutionary paradigm. "Out of date" fossils could sink the theory, yet none are to be found. And creationists cannot even come up with a testable hypothesis explaining the fossils that has not been thoroughly refuted, much less a theory of creationism.

 

[Dirk1540]

I knew that my time in here would be limited, I'll be the 1st to admit that when nitty gritty details started coming around people could definitely pull rank on me because I've only dabbled into evolution research. My major questions though with common descent have always been things that perplex me from a bird's eye view more so then under a microscope. Such as the things I've posted.

But in all my years talking to atheists I've never come across such an aggressive argument style like this thread. I found myself struggling to find the right wording merely to find common ground agreement that I've found with other atheists. I realize that having 9 fossils on your desk is technically a snapshot and observation of the past. I realize that observing the sun is technically observing it 8 minutes ago. But my point has been HOW MUCH MORE THERE IS TO OBSERVE when you're talking about being able to watch something happen in real time, as opposed to snapshots in the past.

I think you guys know what I'm saying I just think the phrase "I know what you mean but..." doesn't exists in this thread. I've never came across atheists where I could not reach a single piece of common ground before. I never talked to atheists who argued with me that humans don't break certain molds. I feel like if I said in here "There's no species that exists that uses weapons like humans do" a reply would come back "Wrong!!! Chimpanzees have picked up and used sticks before!" You guys are out for blood in here lol.

 

[Speedwell]

But in all my years talking to atheists I've never come across such an aggressive argument style like this thread.

That's because it's not about theism versus atheism; it's about a religious minority with a political agenda versus everybody else, theist and atheist alike.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I knew that my time in here would be limited, I'll be the 1st to admit that when nitty gritty details started coming around people could definitely pull rank on me because I've only dabbled into evolution research. My major questions though with common descent have always been things that perplex me from a bird's eye view more so then under a microscope. Such as the things I've posted.

But in all my years talking to atheists I've never come across such an aggressive argument style like this thread. I found myself struggling to find the right wording merely to find common ground agreement that I've found with other atheists. I realize that having 9 fossils on your desk is technically a snapshot and observation of the past. I realize that observing the sun is technically observing it 8 minutes ago. But my point has been HOW MUCH MORE THERE IS TO OBSERVE when you're talking about being able to watch something happen in real time, as opposed to snapshots in the past.

I think you guys know what I'm saying I just think the phrase "I know what you mean but..." doesn't exists in this thread. I've never came across atheists where I could not reach a single piece of common ground before. I never talked to atheists who argued with me that humans don't break certain molds. I feel like if I said in here "There's no species that exists that uses weapons like humans do" a reply would come back "Wrong!!! Chimpanzees have picked up and used sticks before!" You guys are out for blood in here lol.

We are far used to the countless dishonest creationists that someone that is reasonable, and I am not yet saying that you are, may be treated in the same way as the dishonest ones.

But let's go over the points, and why we know that life is the product of evolution.

A key concept to understanding evolution is the Nested Hierarchy. Just as you can trace back in your own lineage to ever greater groups, such as your immediate family that you grew up with, the family that you grew up with and your cousins. The family that you grew up with and your cousins cousins. You will keep finding an ever increasing group.

We can see the same thing in evolution. You can trace it either way. Starting at the first life source and moving on down or starting with one species and moving up. Hopefully this gif posts. If you note there is an acquired trait and everything in the same clade (a group of descendants) will have this same trait:

Yeah! I can see that it works. That is just one list of nested hierarchies. There are several independent ones. And they go hand in hand with the same phylogenetic trees. This is thought to be much stronger evidence than the fossil record alone, but the fossil record also makes such a phylogenetic tree.

If evolution was not the answer the trees should not match. Yet we see them for DNA, the fossil record, ERV's. morphology, and more.

If you want to know why and can come across as being reasonable people will be polite to you. Lately there has been an overdose of people that refuse to understand and blame those on the evolution side for their own recalcitrance.

 

[Dirk1540]

We are far used to the countless dishonest creationists that someone that is reasonable, and I am not yet saying that you are, may be treated in the same way as the dishonest ones.

But let's go over the points, and why we know that life is the product of evolution.

A key concept to understanding evolution is the Nested Hierarchy. Just as you can trace back in your own lineage to ever greater groups, such as your immediate family that you grew up with, the family that you grew up with and your cousins. The family that you grew up with and your cousins cousins. You will keep finding an ever increasing group.

We can see the same thing in evolution. You can trace it either way. Starting at the first life source and moving on down or starting with one species and moving up. Hopefully this gif posts. If you note there is an acquired trait and everything in the same clade (a group of descendants) will have this same trait:

Yeah! I can see that it works. That is just one list of nested hierarchies. There are several independent ones. And they go hand in hand with the same phylogenetic trees. This is thought to be much stronger evidence than the fossil record alone, but the fossil record also makes such a phylogenetic tree.

If evolution was not the answer the trees should not match. Yet we see them for DNA, the fossil record, ERV's. morphology, and more.

If you want to know why and can come across as being reasonable people will be polite to you. Lately there has been an overdose of people that refuse to understand and blame those on the evolution side for their own recalcitrance.

It is interesting, and they do say that intelligent people study the material that they disagree with, the material of the enemy which you most certainly are!!! Lol just kidding. I do want to dig into it further than I have already some time in the near future.

 

[bhsmte]

It is interesting, and they do say that intelligent people study the material that they disagree with, the material of the enemy which you most certainly are!!! Lol just kidding. I do want to dig into it further than I have already some time in the near future.

There are some highly intelligent scientific folks on this site and especially in this portion of the forum. Posting here, your positions will be challenged, if some feel it goes against well evidenced science and they will explain to you why. Of course, if someone has a solid position, it should stand up well to challenges.

 

[Speedwell]

And most of us have spent time with the major creationist web ministries (AiG, ICR, CMI, etc.) as well as reading the "major works" of creationist authors like Morris, Brown, Safarti, Woodmorappe, etc.

And we know the Bible. Better than most creationists who have appeared here.

 

[Astrophile]

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.

Can you tell me more about this remarkably thick cross-bedded sandstone? I can cite greater thicknesses of 'sandstone' from various places in Scotland, e.g. >2350 metres (>7700') of Eifelian and >1500 metres (>4900') of Givetian (both Middle Devonian) in Shetland and >2000 metres (>6600') of Dinantian (mostly Visean) 'Calciferous Sandstone' in East Fife, but these are not homogeneous formations consisting entirely of cross-bedded sandstone. Also the Eifelian and Givetian ages lasted only six million years, and the Visean (Lower Carboniferous) lasted about 19 million years, less than the 50 million years that you mention.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is interesting, and they do say that intelligent people study the material that they disagree with, the material of the enemy which you most certainly are!!! Lol just kidding. I do want to dig into it further than I have already some time in the near future.

Perhaps that is what drew me to a Christian site.

At any rate I don't think of Christians as a whole as the "enemy". I do think that way of creationists at times. And I do know most of their arguments.

 

[quatona]

You are conflating guided evolution with naturalistic evolution.

Regarding evolution theory they are the same. What metaphysical belief people hold about the origin of evolution is immaterial for evolution theory.
It´s about the same difference as between water (created by God) and water (not created by God).
Theists and atheists, spiritualists and naturalists - they all drink the same water.

 

[Obliquinaut]

The biggest problem has always been the lack of "missing links"...

There are several transitional fossils in the rock record. A link has been supplied a couple times in this thread

 

[GUANO]

Nope. DNA has more than made up for any "missing links". Fossils are obvious evidence for the uneducated.

The computer models mapping gene sequences are not even close to complete nor do they 'more than make up for' supposed missing links. I'm not a 'creationist' and agree with many aspects of the theory of evolution but I think you're the one who's putting too much faith into holy books—or is it PowerPoint slides on YouTube?