Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[Subduction Zone]

Re-read. The post specifies transition fossils. A sequence of succession.

Nope, that is not what a transitional fossil is.

Why did you not observe this? And sweep this issue under the rug again?

Because there is no need. An actual stratigrapher would know why.

There are zero transition fossils. Evolutionists try to avoid this, and void this vast world observation.

Wrong again, but then you screwed up on what a transitional fossil is. Let me help you learn. A transitional fossil is a fossil species that has some traits of an older fossil and some traits of a more recent fossil species. You do not get to determine the definition of terms. Here is a better definition for you, but not too different from mine:

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group."

Transitional fossil - Wikipedia[/QUOTE]

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello SZ.

Your still my evidence for the existence of God.

Inflation and baryogenesis
Main articles: Cosmic inflation and baryogenesis
The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation.
(wikipedia)

My accusation of speculation by the scientific community are justified.

But that is only because you lack understanding of the concept of evidence.

And please, now you are making an equivocation error. You are not using the words "speculation" in the same sense as they are.

ETA: And you forgot the link. Quotes without a link are all but worthless.

 

[Obliquinaut]

There are zero transition fossils. Evolutionists try to avoid this, and void this vast world observation.

Why do you repeat this after being shown several cases of transitional fossils in this very thread?

Hmmmm.

 

[klutedavid]

klutedavid, in the world of science for a concept to have evidence for it one must first describe it as a testable hypothesis. That means that one has to think of a reasonably testable way to see if your concept is wrong. One cannot really ever prove an idea "right". One can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but absolute proof is possible only in mathematics. If your concept is not testable it is also almost certainly to be of no use. Scientists are not too fond of untestable claims since they never pan out.

Hello SZ.

We know that science cannot ever prove anything, that even the evolution of a species over time, is in fact not a valid claim. To be a valid claim, there must exist a solution for the claim in the future, a future proof for the claim. Why make a claim that cannot ever be proven, seems to be fruitless exercise?

Science can demonstrate some experiments to support an hypothesis with some degree of certainty. Though science cannot say that evolution is a fact, for example, not while there exists anomalies in the data. The evolution of a species will always be problematic, purely due to lack of direct observation of the events.

Though mathematics is pure ideology, hence, mathematics can indeed have proofs. Yet a perfect circle does not exist, the distance between any two points cannot be a straight line, e.t.c. Mathematics has fundamental axioms, these axioms enable proofs in mathematics to occur. Though the axioms themselves do not represent real world phenomenon.

Ultimately science will never know for certain, to know absolutely requires absolute knowledge. Science has always been about the study of phenomenon without the initial or final events in the show. Science begins after the show started and cannot view the end of the show. Science is the pursuit of the intermediate time period. Science needs observable evidence, thus science is ultimately a handicapped discipline.

 

[klutedavid]

Why do you repeat this after being shown several cases of transitional fossils in this very thread?

Hmmmm.

Hello Obliquinaut.

All fossils must be transitional fossils in evolutionary theory.

 

[klutedavid]

But that is only because you lack understanding of the concept of evidence.

And please, now you are making an equivocation error. You are not using the words "speculation" in the same sense as they are.

ETA: And you forgot the link. Quotes without a link are all but worthless.

Hello SZ.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

 

[Obliquinaut]

We know that science cannot ever prove anything, that even the evolution of a species over time, is in fact not a valid claim.

This sounds like you are making a mendacious claim. I do not wish to suggest you are actually lying, but what you have done here is conflate the difference between science's inability to "prove" anything and your claim that evolution is not valid. The two are NOT RELATED.

YOU made the claim evolution is not valid. The fact that science never endeavors to "prove" anything is completely unrelated.

Science has found so much evidence for evolution that it is likely true, in the same sense that we have lots of evidence for how gravity works to the point that we likely understand a great deal of it.

To be a valid claim, there must exist a solution for the claim in the future, a future proof for the claim. Why make a claim that cannot ever be proven, seems to be fruitless exercise?

Where do you guys get this stuff? You guys act like there some big rule book for science you are working off of and it really sounds like you are simply misinterpretting how science is actually done.

Science needs to be able to make predictions based on evidence and hypotheses. Indeed evolution HAS been investigated from this point of view. As has been shown many times now (HERE)

This doesn't mean we need to propose that a bird will evolve into a dragon in 3 million years and sit there and watch it. That isn't how this works.

It is possible to propose phylogenies based on our knowledge of evolution and then test that assumption by comparing it to actual phylogenies.

Ultimately science will never know for certain, to know absolutely requires absolute knowledge

Correct. But again, you are making a foundational error here: there is really almost nothing you can "know" with perfect knowledge. If science is hampered by this, then there is no valid reason to assume that one can hypothesize "God" in place of an explanation.

. Science has always been about the study of phenomenon without the initial or final events in the show. Science begins after the show started and cannot view the end of the show. Science is the pursuit of the intermediate time period. Science needs observable evidence, thus science is ultimately a handicapped discipline.

Religion even more so for the exact same reason.

Science at least has the humility to admit its limitations. I have almost never seen a religious claim followed by "...but I could be wrong."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello SZ.

We know that science cannot ever prove anything, that even the evolution of a species over time, is in fact not a valid claim. To be a valid claim, there must exist a solution for the claim in the future, a future proof for the claim. Why make a claim that cannot ever be proven, seems to be fruitless exercise?

Please, you can't debate if you aren't reasonable. There are different usages of the word "proof". Scientists don't like to use the word because it can lead to a closed mind. But in this case evolution is a fact that has been proved far beyond a reasonable doubt. If there ever was a killer that you were happy to see be put away in a trial then by the same standards the concept of evolution is more than proven.

Science can demonstrate some experiments to support an hypothesis with some degree of certainty. Though science cannot say that evolution is a fact, for example, not while there exists anomalies in the data. The evolution of a species will always be problematic, purely due to lack of direct observation of the events.

Sorry, but science can say that evolution is a fact. Once again, there is more than enough evidence for that. You still have not faced the fact that there is only evidence for evolution and none to the contrary.

Though mathematics is pure ideology, hence, mathematics can indeed have proofs. Yet a perfect circle does not exist, the distance between any two points cannot be a straight line, e.t.c. Mathematics has fundamental axioms, these axioms enable proofs in mathematics to occur. Though the axioms themselves do not represent real world phenomenon.

Right. The ideal world of mathematics is a useful tool for our real world, but one must be able to keep them separate in ones mind.

Ultimately science will never know for certain, to know absolutely requires absolute knowledge. Science has always been about the study of phenomenon without the initial or final events in the show. Science begins after the show started and cannot view the end of the show. Science is the pursuit of the intermediate time period. Science needs observable evidence, thus science is ultimately a handicapped discipline.

Now this last is just wishful thinking and grasping at straws. Concepts can be shown to be wrong. The belief in creationism has been shown to be wrong. Why do you stick with it?

 

[Obliquinaut]

All fossils must be transitional fossils in evolutionary theory.

Where did you get that? That sounds like a philosophical statement, not a factual claim. I'd be interested to know where you picked that one up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Obliquinaut.

All fossils must be transitional fossils in evolutionary theory.

Not quite. If a fossil is the end of its line it is not transitional. The last nonavian dinosaurs at the time of the K-Pg boundary are not transitional for example.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where did you get that? That sounds like a philosophical statement, not a factual claim. I'd be interested to know where you picked that one up.

I think he has conflated the fact that most fossils are transitional, we can find a prior species with many of its traits and a later one with different traits that it shares with the transitional fossil. But that does not mean that all of them are transitional.

And they don't "have to be" they are "observed to be" transitional. A big and important difference.

 

[bhsmte]

LOL

 

[klutedavid]

Hello SZ.

Please, you can't debate if you aren't reasonable. There are different usages of the word "proof". Scientists don't like to use the word because it can lead to a closed mind. But in this case evolution is a fact that has been proved far beyond a reasonable doubt. If there ever was a killer that you were happy to see be put away in a trial then by the same standards the concept of evolution is more than proven.

In the case of a murder, eyewitnesses accounts will definitely hang the offender.
Direct observations of the events are required to approach any proof. Speculative association based purely on physiology is a rather weak pursuit.

Sorry, but science can say that evolution is a fact. Once again, there is more than enough evidence for that. You still have not faced the fact that there is only evidence for evolution and none to the contrary.

Only true, if one is conditioned or educated within the evolutionary framework. If the evolution of a species is a fact, then I will demand the evolutionary history of that species from inception to the present. Just one example of one species, showing the array of different transitional species in the series, thanks.

Right. The ideal world of mathematics is a useful tool for our real world, but one must be able to keep them separate in ones mind.

Yes SZ, one is fictional and the other is not.

Now this last is just wishful thinking and grasping at straws. Concepts can be shown to be wrong. The belief in creationism has been shown to be wrong. Why do you stick with it?

I reject Genesis chapters one and two, as authentic scripture.

 

[bhsmte]

Hello SZ.


In the case of a murder, eyewitnesses accounts will definitely hang the offender.
Direct observations of the events are required to approach any proof. Speculative association based purely on physiology is a rather weak pursuit.

Only true, if one is conditioned or educated within the evolutionary framework. If the evolution of a species is a fact, then I will demand the evolutionary history of that species from inception to the present. Just one example of one species, showing the array of different transitional species in the series, thanks.

Yes SZ, one is fictional and the other is not.

I reject Genesis chapters one and two, as authentic scripture.

Eye witness testimony can be extremely flawed and eye witnesses can be cross examined and impeached (as they often are) at trial. Forensic evidence doesnt lie and is the strongest evidence in court.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello SZ.


In the case of a murder, eyewitnesses accounts will definitely hang the offender.
Direct observations of the events are required to approach any proof. Speculative association based purely on physiology is a rather weak pursuit.

Eyewitness testimony is thought to be the weakest of acceptable forms of evidence. And please, drop the word "speculation". You are just not using it appropriately.

Only true, if one is conditioned or educated within the evolutionary framework. If the evolution of a species is a fact, then I will demand the evolutionary history of that species from inception to the present. Just one example of one species, showing the array of different transitional species is a series, thanks.

Again, wrong. You simply lack an education in the sciences. One simply has to be educated. No special conditions required, there is no "educated within the evolutionary framework". Those that understand this concept accept it overwhelmingly.

Yes SZ, one is fictional and the other is not.

Fictional is a bad word to use for math. "Idealized" would be better.

I reject Genesis chapters one and two, as authentic scripture.

Well that is a beginning. How about the flood myth?

 

[klutedavid]

Where did you get that? That sounds like a philosophical statement, not a factual claim. I'd be interested to know where you picked that one up.

Hello Obliquinaut.

What a popular thread this is, so much enthusiasm in the posts, such prompt replies.

Evolutionary theory proposes that all species are transitional, unless of course you are aware of any species, that is not subject to evolutionary forces?

A species may have it's transition terminated by some event, but that does not mean it was not a transitional species. Science studies never ending change in nature, all species need to be transitional.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello SZ.

Interesting conversation.

Eyewitness testimony is thought to be the weakest of acceptable forms of evidence.

I thought circumstantial evidence would be the weakest.

And please, drop the word "speculation". You are just not using it appropriately.

Speculation, the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. Perhaps your problem is with the phrase 'firm evidence'.

Again, wrong. You simply lack an education in the sciences. One simply has to be educated. No special conditions required, there is no "educated within the evolutionary framework". Those that understand this concept accept it overwhelmingly.

Not always correct but never wrong.

Fictional is a bad word to use for math. "Idealized" would be better.

Agreed.

Well that is a beginning. How about the flood myth?

These early accounts have a legal layer from an authorship, probably dated after the Exodus account. Noah for example mentions clean and unclean animals, that is impossible according to the text. There are obviously real accounts hidden beyond what the text is describing, but the authentic narration is too difficult to extract. I just do not accept the early Genesis accounts.

I reject a young earth chronology, I also reject an ancient earth chronology for that matter. Two extreme views that are impossible to reconcile without a battery of assumptions.

Genesis is more accurately a description of the history of the nation of Israel, I think that is why it was written.

 

[klutedavid]

Eye witness testimony can be extremely flawed and eye witnesses can be cross examined and impeached (as they often are) at trial. Forensic evidence doesnt lie and is the strongest evidence in court.

Hello bhstme.

Yet objective testimony is at the heart of all our accounts in history.

This is a complex subject, if you and I see a person stab another person to death. Our testimony of the event is valid, yet our observations are from slightly different perspectives. What then happens if our testimonies do not exactly match?

 

[bhsmte]

Hello bhstme.

Yet objective testimony is at the heart of all our accounts in history.

This is a complex subject, if you and I see a person stab another person to death. Our testimony of the event is valid, yet our observations are from slightly different perspectives. What then happens if our testimonies do not exactly match?

Ask any prosecutor, whether they want forensic evidence to prosecute a murder, or if they just want an eye witness. Let me know what they say.

 

[pitabread]

This is a complex subject, if you and I see a person stab another person to death. Our testimony of the event is valid, yet our observations are from slightly different perspectives. What then happens if our testimonies do not exactly match?

Here is another scenario: two people stab someone to death, then both claim they saw someone else do it.

Do you think the prosecution should rely on their testimony?