Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[Subduction Zone]

of course that they are different. even the same gene in both human and chimp is different. the problem here is that the same gene (with it's variations) found in different groups without any nested hierarchy. as we can predict under the design scenario.

So you understand your error. Oh wait, you don't.

They were not talking about the "same gene" in that article. You still don't understand your error.

so far it's seems that it's only apply to you.

ROFLMAO!!!

Seriously dude, you keep making ignorant error after ignorant error. Learn the basics and you might be able to debate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you already said that a robot that made from organic components isnt evidence for design. i have nothing to say about that "logic".

Please, don't make it worse for you. You keep saying that the robot is built. All that that robot is evidence for is that someone could design a robot in general. It is not evidence for "design".

Don't attempt to put others down when you are the one that does not understand how logic works.

Once again, learn the basics and you will not make such ignorant mistakes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you call it animal because its made from organic components and have a replication system? if so a self replicating watch that made from a wood isnt a watch too.

You keep coming up with examples that do not exist. You can't refute reality with a hypothetical case. Try to stick to reality for a little while.

 

[quatona]

you call it animal because its made from organic components and have a replication system?

I would naturally consider it an animal because there´s nothing that allows us to tell that it is not. I wouldn´t and couldn´t even know that it´s a robot (=a humanly built machine).

if so a self replicating watch that made from a wood isnt a watch too.

Doesn´t follow - but whatever. Logic seems to be lost on you, anyway.

 

[4x4toy]

Please explain how soft dinosaur tissue exists and is being carbon dated to 30,000 yrs old and less .. And please don't insult your own intelligence ..

 

[bhsmte]

This should be fun.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please explain how soft dinosaur tissue exists and is being carbon dated to 30,000 yrs old and less .. And please don't insult your own intelligence ..

It hasn't been, at least to the best of my knowledge. At least not by competent scientists. There was a group of creationists that tried to do this but from my understanding they did not use proper collection methodology and they lied to the testing agency. That automatically would void any "dates" acquired in the process. And "soft dinosaur tissue" is not "soft". Multiple level fail here.

But as soon as you find some well respected peer reviewed journal articles that support your claims we can begin.

 

[4x4toy]

It hasn't been, at least to the best of my knowledge. At least not by competent scientists. There was a group of creationists that tried to do this but from my understanding they did not use proper collection methodology and they lied to the testing agency. That automatically would void any "dates" acquired in the process. And "soft dinosaur tissue" is not "soft". Multiple level fail here.

But as soon as you find some well respected peer reviewed journal articles that support your claims we can begin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you have nothing? Why even post in that case?

 

[4x4toy]

So you have nothing? Why even post in that case?

Why did you insult your own intelligence ? I ask you not to do that ..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why did you insult your own intelligence ? I ask you not to do that ..

So you still have nothing and now are adding insulting others to your sins.


I suppose when one has only rumors and the works of incompetents those are the strongest debate tactics that one can use.

Do you have anything at all that made it over the fairly low bar of being published in a well respected professional scientific journal?

 

[Obliquinaut]

so a robot isnt evidence for design if it's made from organic components and have a self replicating system.

It seems that your examples are getting more derivative up to the point that soon you will ask us if a life form that was synthetically designed by scientists in the lab is evidence of design.

Indeed it would be. But that is simply a tautology.

The question is: does LIFE need an intelligent designer to arrive at the state it is in today. And it seems quite reasonable to assume that the answer is "no". If it is not required then why hypothesize it?

We have all the necessary equipment to account for how life arose and how it has changed over time in response to environmental stresses. So why would you need an intelligent designer to account for any of it?

Science works by explaining the variability in the data with as few factors as possible.

 

[klutedavid]

Nope, it is only evidence that the universe exists. This just goes to show that creationists do not understand the nature of evidence. The universe is also "evidence" that it arose naturally without any supernatural help. A datum that can be used to support any argument is not evidence.

Hello Subduction Zone.

A universe cannot suddenly just appear, that is pure magic my friend. Your seeing the origin of everything as having what you call, natural causes. You are the one who does not see through the fabric of everything, your not seeing the first cause.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Subduction Zone.

A universe cannot suddenly just appear, that is pure magic my friend. Your seeing the origin of everything as having what you call, natural causes. You are the one who does not see through the fabric of everything, your not seeing the first cause.

Sorry, but this is just an argument from ignorance on your part and off topic. We are not discussing how the universe as we know it began, we are discussing the fact that life is the product of evolution on this thread.

By the way what you just attempted was a MASSIVE moving of the goalposts. One does that when one knows that one is wrong about a lesser aspect of the debate. By moving the goalposts back to the beginning of the universe you in effect not only concede the evolution debate, you conceded the abiogenesis debate, the debate about how our planet formed, the debate about how our solar system formed. The debate about how our galaxy formed. All the way back to the moment of the Big Bang.

Are you sure that you want to do that?

 

[klutedavid]

Sorry, but this is just an argument from ignorance on your part and off topic. We are not discussing how the universe as we know it began, we are discussing the fact that life is the product of evolution on this thread.

By the way what you just attempted was a MASSIVE moving of the goalposts. One does that when one knows that one is wrong about a lesser aspect of the debate. By moving the goalposts back to the beginning of the universe you in effect not only concede the evolution debate, you conceded the abiogenesis debate, the debate about how our planet formed, the debate about how our solar system formed. The debate about how our galaxy formed. All the way back to the moment of the Big Bang.

Are you sure that you want to do that?

Hello Subduction Zone.

No one can discuss the origin of life or even the origin of the universe, that is impossible.

Observations of the the earliest events do not exist, all we have access to is a partial image of these earlier events. It is impossible to accurately determine to any real degree with any certainty, what actually took place in the beginning. You will be forced to assume specific events took place as the evidence is non existent.

We arrived far to late and after the major events of life and the universe itself, to be able to accurately know anything of worth about these events.

The evolution of life is a speculative attempt at explaining the history of life on this planet. We rely on a partial fossil, a record of only certain life forms for this purpose, yet there is far too much missing in the fossil record. To arrive at any satisfactory theory, we must fill in the blanks, assume this and that, except perhaps for those prone to wishful thinking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Subduction Zone.

No one can discuss the origin of life or even the origin of the universe, that is impossible.

Observations of the the earliest events do not exist, all we have access to is a partial image of these earlier events. It is impossible to accurately determine to any real degree with any certainty, what actually took place in the beginning. You will be forced to assume specific events took place as the evidence is non existent.

We arrived far to late and after the major events of life and the universe itself, to be able to accurately know anything of worth about these events.

The evolution of life is a speculative attempt at explaining the history of life on this planet. We rely on a partial fossil, a record of only certain life forms for this purpose, yet there is far too much missing in the fossil record. To arrive at any satisfactory theory, we must fill in the blanks, assume this and that, except perhaps for those prone to wishful thinking.

You are wrong on many of these claims, but that is neither here nor there. You ducked the fact that you made the debating error of moving the goalposts. As I said when someone does that I am usually willing to discuss the topic that they moved the discussion to, but only if they admit that they were on the wrong side of the previous debate.

So if you wish to discuss abiogenesis or the Big Bang that is fine with me, but first you need to admit that once life existed it evolved.

 

[klutedavid]

You are wrong on many of these claims, but that is neither here nor there. You ducked the fact that you made the debating error of moving the goalposts. As I said when someone does that I am usually willing to discuss the topic that they moved the discussion to, but only if they admit that they were on the wrong side of the previous debate.

So if you wish to discuss abiogenesis or the Big Bang that is fine with me, but first you need to admit that once life existed it evolved.

Hello Subduction zone.

I am not making claims SZ, rather I am exposing your belief system, a belief system based purely on observational criteria.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Subduction zone.

I am not making claims SZ, rather I am exposing your belief system, a belief system based purely on observational criteria.

But you only exposed your ignorance of science. That is not the topic of this thread. And accepting scientific evidence,theories and hypotheses is hardly a "belief system". You are merely trying to project your flaws on to others.

So once more, what do you wish to discuss? If you want to change the topic then you need to concede the present argument.

 

[Obliquinaut]

No one can discuss the origin of life or even the origin of the universe, that is impossible.

It is arguably accurate that we cannot discuss the origin of the universe since it means talking about what happened before time.

But as to the origin of life we actually can discuss it and indeed investigations can move us toward a reasonable hypothesis.

The evolution of life is a speculative attempt at explaining the history of life on this planet.

But the chemistry was already in place for about 9 billion years before the earth began, so once we form the earth, cool it, get it to the point where we can utilize the chemistry we can wind up with life.

There's a lot of interesting and valid data on abiogenesis and there is no reason to assume we can't possibly every understand how life arose.

We rely on a partial fossil, a record of only certain life forms for this purpose, yet there is far too much missing in the fossil record.

There is a lot missing in the fossil record, but the fact of the matter is there's a LOT OF INFORMATION THERE. Enough to give us a huge amount of information on evolution and how life has changed over time. It's like seeing a movie but at a much longer frame rate with a few frames missing.

To arrive at any satisfactory theory, we must fill in the blanks, assume this and that, except perhaps for those prone to wishful thinking.

That isn't really how it works. Indeed we would love to have all the data available. Every scientist would. But that isn't always possible. In the case of the earth sciences and even biology there are things that may be missing. Sometimes we know they're missing and we can utilize that lack of information to understand what is going on.

Think of the fossil record as a random sample of life's forms. We don't need to see every single brachiopod in a Mississippian Formation to be able to draw significant conclusions on brachiopoda in the Mississippian. So much of science is done using SAMPLES rather than entire POPULATIONS. And it's all just fine.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I am not making claims SZ, rather I am exposing your belief system, a belief system based purely on observational criteria.

How is a noting someone uses OBSERVATION to inform their beliefs something that needs to be "exposed"? It actually sounds like a pretty solid basis for a belief system and should be LAUDED.

Just sayin'.