The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

y rock-alive model is undefeated because I have the whole petrology as a knowledge base behind it, and the challengers have none or very little.

Your challenges have very little or no knowledge base behind them? Colour me shocked! Shocked!

 

[juvenissun]

Your challenges have very little or no knowledge base behind them? Colour me shocked! Shocked!

How many time you've been shocked? Do you see a problem of that?

 

[Kylie]

It is reasonable within a domain (the earth). It is too restricted because there are other systems outside the domain (space) behave the similar.

Give specific examples.

Deeper, yours (and most people's) definition may cause problems in some human behaviors.

Care to explain what you mean by this? Preferably by giving specific examples.

 

[Kylie]

Yes, if you define things that operates in a system well enough, then the definitions are acceptable.

So you agree that you are just redefining words so they can mean whatever you want them to mean?

Because all I've seen you do is make the claim, "Rocks are alive, provided that you redefine life arbitrarily to mean this thing that no reputable scientist would claim it meant."

In your example, something obviously need to be explained. So it is not good enough, at the least, is not competed. It does not sound as easy as it appears. You need to have a pretty deep knowledge base in order to do that. My rock-alive model is undefeated because I have the whole petrology as a knowledge base behind it, and the challengers have none or very little.

You have the whole knowledge base of petrology behind you? Please, tell me what qualifications you have in the field. What degrees have you done? At what universities?

 

[juvenissun]

So you agree that you are just redefining words so they can mean whatever you want them to mean?

Because all I've seen you do is make the claim, "Rocks are alive, provided that you redefine life arbitrarily to mean this thing that no reputable scientist would claim it meant."

No. I don't define something at the beginning.
I thoroughly understand the rock system, then I found the similarity.
THEN, I modify the definition.

That is why it still can stand.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

How many time you've been shocked? Do you see a problem of that?

I was being sarcastic because you explicitly admitted that any challenges you create are basically intellectually pointless.

 

[Kylie]

No. I don't define something at the beginning.
I thoroughly understand the rock system, then I found the similarity.
THEN, I modify the definition.

That is why it still can stand.

Whatever you say.

You are still just redefining it to mean what you want it to mean.

 

[juvenissun]

Whatever you say.

You are still just redefining it to mean what you want it to mean.

No, I can not. I redefine it to mean something special, which is not whatever I want. Otherwise, there will be problems. I am not that good.

 

[VirOptimus]

No, I can not. I redefine it to mean something special, which is not whatever I want. Otherwise, there will be problems. I am not that good.

You do not have the authority to redefine anything.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, I can not. I redefine it to mean something special, which is not whatever I want. Otherwise, there will be problems. I am not that good.

You said that you don't redefine words, but then you go right back and say that you do.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No. I don't define something at the beginning.
I thoroughly understand the rock system, then I found the similarity.
THEN, I modify the definition.

That is why it still can stand.

I bolded the invalid step. You sir, have no authority to redefine anything. I don't get to redefine cancer to be "a minor inconvenience" just because my family history of it makes me unhappy when considering what cancer actually is.

 

[juvenissun]

I bolded the invalid step. You sir, have no authority to redefine anything. I don't get to redefine cancer to be "a minor inconvenience" just because my family history of it makes me unhappy when considering what cancer actually is.

Of course I can. I, AM the authority. That is what I am doing here.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Of course I can. I, AM the authority. That is what I am doing here.

But you aren't the authority. You're, and excuse for being blunt with this, nothing.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Of course I can. I, AM the authority. That is what I am doing here.

Lol, no singular individual is an authority that gets to decide the definitions of words, scientific terms or otherwise. You can certainly choose to interpret words using a deviant definition if you want, but you can't make people accept that definition or treat your interpretation as valid.

 

[tas8831]

Only have a few minutes, but I wanted to post a quick reply.

Yes, a directed mutation if you want to call it that which turns off and on genes that produce a feature through development but not evolution by random mutation and blind evolution.

Eagerly awaiting evidence for this.

Evolution is supposed to be small and gradual changes/steps and if it was the other way around where a whole feature is produced suddenly by a blind and random process then that would suggest a pre-determined process that was designed to be that way and not evolution.

A bit of a strawman followed by a non sequitur.

"blind and random" - you know, it would be nice if professional anti-science zealots/YECs would tell their readers that there are certain phrases that anti-science/YEC types should never use, for it allows those that truly understand evolution and science to see, right off the bat, that the YEC doesn't understand evolution.

"Blind and random" is one such phrase.

Besides isnt evolution suppose to be able to undo anything it can evolve and this is something that has been promoted to explain observations of some creatures who have gained a feature and then lost it again and sometimes regained that feature once again. All this is suppose to be accounted for by natural selections great creative power rather than perhaps some other explanation so there is a fair bit of faith in the theory. So if evolution can lose a complete feature it should be able to produce a complete feature in one generation. But that is not how it works nor has this been shown.

Wow... I prefer my word salad with some palatable dressing.

More dopey strawman nonsense/Dunning-Kruger effect.

Put it to you this way, by way of analogy:

Takes a long time to build a house, right? How long does it take to knock one down?

I frankly don't understand what you were trying to get at, but let us suppose that some particular feature requires the interactions of 10 proteins produced by 10 genes. And it took many generations of "random and blind accidents" to produce. Then, in one generation, it is lost because a single "random and blind accident" turned off the first gene in the cascade.

Just.
Like.
That.

Hint - learn some basic genetics, development, and evolution before you pretend to be able to debunk it.

Any feature that requires more than one random mutation. If it requires multiple random mutations to get the exact requirements needed to produce that feature, then this is has been shown to be unlikely for evolution.

Wow, cool, I guess evolution is totally wrong!

Wait a second...


"If it [a feature] requires multiple random mutations to get the exact requirements needed to produce that feature..."

Like I wrote above -

Hint - learn some basic genetics, development, and evolution before you pretend to be able to debunk it.

It would be against phenomenal odds. Refer to citations below....

Protein burns its evolutionary bridges
Time always marches forward — and so does evolution, according to a new study showing that protein changes that happened over the course of tens of millions of years can prevent molecular turnaround.
Protein burns its evolutionary bridges : Nature News

Experimental Rugged Fitness Landscape in Protein Sequence Space
Based on the landscapes of these two different surfaces, it appears possible for adaptive walks with only random substitutions to climb with relative ease up to the middle region of the fitness landscape from any primordial or random sequence, whereas an enormous range of sequence diversity is required to climb further up the rugged surface above the middle region.
Experimental Rugged Fitness Landscape in Protein Sequence Space

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds:
The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. - PubMed - NCBI

Those were too hard for me to understand. Please EXPLAIN them to me, and explain HOW they support your above claims.

Or at least link the the YEC website that referred to them.

 

[juvenissun]

Lol, no singular individual is an authority that gets to decide the definitions of words, scientific terms or otherwise. You can certainly choose to interpret words using a deviant definition if you want, but you can't make people accept that definition or treat your interpretation as valid.

You surprised me. Have you really learned in higher education?
Do you know how does a definition or a term, a model get accepted by the science community?

 

[Shemjaza]

You surprised me. Have you really learned in higher education?
Do you know how does a definition or a term, a model get accepted by the science community?

Common use could certainly be a part of it.

But more likely you should clearly and unambiguously define your terms in your publications.

Vague declarations and hand waving questions as responses in some kind of parody of the Socratic method are not a good way to convince, teach or even communicate.

 

[juvenissun]

Common use could certainly be a part of it.

But more likely you should clearly and unambiguously define your terms in your publications.

Vague declarations and hand waving questions as responses in some kind of parody of the Socratic method are not a good way to convince, teach or even communicate.

You are right. But I am not writing a paper here.

 

[Shemjaza]

You are right. But I am not writing a paper here.

You made a reference to higher education. I assumed you were discussing of communicating in a formal context.

Would you describe why terminology should be changed to your preferred version without agreement or definitions?

 

[juvenissun]

You made a reference to higher education. I assumed you were discussing of communicating in a formal context.

Would you describe why terminology should be changed to your preferred version without agreement or definitions?

Of course. I won't try to change any definition without a practical purpose (ain't broken, no fix). One minor reason of changing that is to solve a critical problem in Buddhism. They can not find the answer for thousands of years.

Yes, I am formal. But it is not a paper. No question, no explanation.