The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[Brightmoon]

No there’s no for need a rethink . You somehow inserted yourself into professional debates over the various processes of evolution without really having the relevant background to understand them. So you’re coming up with your own interpretation that’s also been colored by your religious beliefs . These types of science debates go back to the1930s and they’re all part of the theories of evolution. Your religious background is playing you falsely here

 

[stevevw]

Im not saying people without relevant academia cant understand the ToE, but you clearly dont.

You dont understand the papers you quote or why your posts are nonsense. Also, you refuse to learn and brush away all critique, not a good quality in debating.

When you are wrong, you are wrong. Learn from it, dont double down.

The problem is you have not explained how I am wrong. All you keep saying is that I do not understand. For example how is the EES not questioning the Stardard evolutionary theory.

 

[Speedwell]

The problem is you have not explained how I am wrong. All you keep saying is that I do not understand. For example how is the EES not questioning the Stardard evolutionary theory.

So what if it is? That is how science proceeds.

 

[VirOptimus]

The problem is you have not explained how I am wrong. All you keep saying is that I do not understand. For example how is the EES not questioning the Stardard evolutionary theory.

I have explained, repeatedly. I have also said, repeatedly, write to the authors of the papers you quote. But you wont, as for you, this is not science, its religion. And when you are a fundamentalist you cant be wrong.

 

[Brightmoon]

So what if it is? That is how science proceeds.

. Scientists had the same sorts of debates over Hawking radiation (evaporating black holes). Punctuated equilibrium (which is mainly a paleontology theory about changes in morphology over time and sometimes we do see this pattern in living organisms too) etc .

Punk eek in living organisms- Timema cristinae

 

[Kylie]

This is what I am talking about how most people think that evolution (natural selection) has great creative power and is responsible for just about everything we see. So all the patterns on moths wings are the result of blind selection sifting through thousands of possibilities to produce all these colours and shapes. In some cases painting specific pictures on their wings. This becomes hard to believe and there is no evidence apart from people assuming that Neo-Darwinism can do this.

Citation required.

A more logical and supported explanation that fits in with what scientists are seeing is there are other influences with development processes that can produce certain biased outcomes that may be useful for those moths. The moth's ability to develop these patterns is more plastic which allows a certain scope of patterns to be produced. In other words, the eye patterns are produced as eyes and don't have to go through a hit and miss process of trying to evolve a useless blotch into a specific eye pattern. Natural selection may then refine this as to the best eye patterns that will be more useful.

So when a moth develops an eye-like pattern on its wings, it actually intentionally creates the pattern? How does the moth do that? You've been very vague here. Why don't you go into more detail? Do you have any sources from reputable scientists that discuss this concept?

Natural selection is good at the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest. Evolution theory cannot account or explain how features go there in the first place.

This statement shows a great ignorance of what evolution actually is.

Evolutionary developmental biology

Some work on developmental bias suggests that phenotypic variation can be channelled and directed towards functional types by the processes of development [27,28]. The rationale is that development relies on highly robust ‘core processes’, from microtubule formation and signal transduction pathways to organogenesis, which at the same time exhibit ‘exploratory behaviour’ [28], allowing them to stabilize and select certain states over others. Exploratory behaviour followed by somatic selection enables core processes to be responsive to changes in genetic and environmental input, while their robustness and conservation maintain their ability to generate functional (i.e. well integrated) outcomes in the face of perturbations. This phenomenon, known as facilitated variation [28,34], provides a mechanistic explanation for how small, genetic changes can sometimes elicit substantial, non-random, well-integrated and apparently adaptive innovations in the phenotype.
The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions

Nice cut 'n' paste. How about you just post a link instead of copying great slabs of text?

 

[stevevw]

I have explained, repeatedly. I have also said, repeatedly, write to the authors of the papers you quote. But you wont, as for you, this is not science, its religion. And when you are a fundamentalist you cant be wrong.

I am open to being proved wrong. It does not matter to me if evolution is correct as this will not make a difference to my belief. My belief is not dependent on particular creation or evolution events. I do not think anyone can really know. As I stated I do not know how things happened in the beginning as to whether there was a 7 day creation, a long time creation, certain kinds were created or God created a single universal organism where everything has evolved from that. This is my position despite what you try to force me into being.

My belief is based on there being a creator God involved in some way shape or form but I do not know how. If He happened to create a universal organism as those who support theistic evolution support then that is fine. It still supports evolution but also supports design in life and would just mean God used evolution as a means to help life survive on a changing planet.

I have posted those papers based on my position as to showing that there may be more inbuilt and guided ways for how life changes that have been there from a very early stage in the evolution of life. Thats all I am focusing on and not exactly how this happened at this point as I do not really know. All I know is that this seems to be the evidence from science in areas such as biological development, genomics, social sciences, HGT, epigentics etc.

I do not need to write to the authors of these papers to find out something they have already stated in black and white. There are already reviews and commentary on these papers which I have read which support what I have said which is the same as verifying what the authors have said. Depite you have explained repeatedly I have not seen this. You could not have explained why the things said with the EES do not challengedthe tenets of Neo Darwinism becuase I have only mentioned it in this thread.

 

[Kylie]

If He happened to create a universal organism as those who support theistic evolution support then that is fine. It still supports evolution but also supports design in life and would just mean God used evolution as a means to help life survive on a changing planet.

It would only support design in the most basic sense, since such a God would not have designed bones or gills or feathers or eyes, etc.

 

[stevevw]

No there’s no for need a rethink.
.

Then why does that paper say this

We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

But they go further and state that it is not just about adding to the current theory but also replacing some main tenets.

The impetus for the Extended Synthesis, a graft onto, or a major departure from, the Modern Synthesis (depending on who is describing it), was the overwhelming data generated in recent years that just didn't fit the old formula.
https://archive.archaeology.org/online/interviews/newman.html

They even go as far as saying that natural selection a main tenet of the Modern theory is not the primary force of evolution but that other influences play more of a prominent role.
The World's Top Biologists Have Met to Discuss Whether We Should Update Evolution

You somehow inserted yourself into professional debates over the various processes of evolution without really having the relevant background to understand them. So you’re coming up with your own interpretation that’s also been colored by your religious beliefs.

How do you determine that when what I have posted is repeating what those professionals are saying and they are not religious?

These types of science debates go back to the1930s and they’re all part of the theories of evolution. Your religious background is playing you falsely here

I don’t think the EES goes back that far and some of the ideas have only recently been emphasized as actual forces that can cause change. Besides some say that the EES is not really part of the theory but rather should replace it.

 

[Speedwell]

Then why does that paper say this

We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

But they go further and state that it is not just about adding to the current theory but also replacing some main tenets.

The impetus for the Extended Synthesis, a graft onto, or a major departure from, the Modern Synthesis (depending on who is describing it), was the overwhelming data generated in recent years that just didn't fit the old formula.
https://archive.archaeology.org/online/interviews/newman.html

They even go as far as saying that natural selection a main tenet of the Modern theory is not the primary force of evolution but that other influences play more of a prominent role.
The World's Top Biologists Have Met to Discuss Whether We Should Update Evolution

How do you determine that when what I have posted is repeating what those professionals are saying and they are not religious?


I don’t think the EES goes back that far and some of the ideas have only recently been emphasized as actual forces that can cause change. Besides some say that the EES is not really part of the theory but rather should replace it.

Even if that were all true, I don't see how it advances creationism.

 

[stevevw]

It would only support design in the most basic sense, since such a God would not have designed bones or gills or feathers or eyes, etc.

You do not have to directly design bones, gills, feathers or eyes to design them. You can design a program or code that can produce those things as well. Just think computer software.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then why does that paper say this

We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

But they go further and state that it is not just about adding to the current theory but also replacing some main tenets.

The impetus for the Extended Synthesis, a graft onto, or a major departure from, the Modern Synthesis (depending on who is describing it), was the overwhelming data generated in recent years that just didn't fit the old formula.
https://archive.archaeology.org/online/interviews/newman.html

They even go as far as saying that natural selection a main tenet of the Modern theory is not the primary force of evolution but that other influences play more of a prominent role.
The World's Top Biologists Have Met to Discuss Whether We Should Update Evolution

How do you determine that when what I have posted is repeating what those professionals are saying and they are not religious?


I don’t think the EES goes back that far and some of the ideas have only recently been emphasized as actual forces that can cause change. Besides some say that the EES is not really part of the theory but rather should replace it.

The same old articles. Have anything new? Written to the authors yet?

Why no articles from 2017-18? Is it perhaps because you have found ”your answer” and isnt really interested in real science?

 

[Heissonear]

This is what I am talking about how most people think that evolution (natural selection) has great creative power and is responsible for just about everything. .................Natural selection is good at the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest.

Very well stated principles of blind evolution course. "Great Creative Powers" is given to Evolution by most Evolutionists. You present their dreamland principle well!

 

[Kylie]

You do not have to directly design bones, gills, feathers or eyes to design them. You can design a program or code that can produce those things as well. Just think computer software.

But since you could not possibly know what the outcome would be, how can you say that you designed them.

Can I say that I painted the picture my daughter made at school? After all, I made her. I made a person who created a painting, so I get to claim credit for it.

 

[Speedwell]

You do not have to directly design bones, gills, feathers or eyes to design them. You can design a program or code that can produce those things as well. Just think computer software.

Yes, you can design a program that will produce those things by random variation and selection. The electronics industry designs products that way routinely. But who designed the program?

 

[Brightmoon]

Saying a designer designed life is pseudoscience. You see patterns and you think that they need to be designed by something or someone. Snowflakes are patterned but they aren’t designed.

There is a pattern to living organisms as well . We refer to that pattern as the tree of life and we understand that every organism is kin to every other organism on it. We normally call that pattern evolution/ common descent.

That pattern evolved ultimately out of the chemical structure of a few elements (Abiogenesis) even though that chemical structuring is not part of evolution. .

Belief in a deity has very little to do with science. As I’ve stated before I’m quite comfortable with natural phenomena being , well, natural.

 

[stevevw]

The same old articles. Have anything new? Written to the authors yet?

Why no articles from 2017-18? Is it perhaps because you have found ”your answer” and isnt really interested in real science?

Theres nothing wrong with papers from 10 years ago if they are still supported today. A group of 16 top scientists met in 2007 to bring to the attention of mainstream science the EES and there have been plenty of scientific papers and articles since then. I just posted some from 2014 and 2016 on the subject.
2014
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
2016
The World's Top Biologists Have Met to Discuss Whether We Should Update Evolution

And heres one from 2017 I have used before
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

I am not going to write to authors when I can verify what is said through their own and others commentary on the subject and the reviews from others. They have already dont the work for me and others. If you want to dispute this then you will have to explain why.

 

[VirOptimus]

Theres nothing wrong with papers from 10 years ago if they are still supported today. A group of 16 top scientists met in 2007 to bring to the attention of mainstream science the EES and there have been plenty of scientific papers and articles since then. I just posted some from 2014 and 2016 on the subject.
2014
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
2016
The World's Top Biologists Have Met to Discuss Whether We Should Update Evolution

And heres one from 2017 I have used before
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

Perfect, write those authors with your interprentation and ask.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The point is natural selection has been given more creative power than what it really has

Natural selection has zero "creative" power, since it doesn't create anything. It filters.

because some want to attribute the complexity and variety we see to naturalistic processes.

That makes no sense.

//Points at all the evolutionary biologists, geneticists, etc that are also theists and who accept mainstream evolution theory by consensus.

But rather there are other processes that are more guided and biased which produce certain outcomes quickly that are well suited for creatures to adapt to their environments.

Such as?
And don't forget to explain your examples. Mere assertions aren't interesting nore convincing.

This points to living things being made with inbuilt mechanisms to change.

Why?

All this diminishes Neo-Darwinism and supports design in life.

So far, you have only been asserting this.

Natural selection has been attributed too much creative power because that is what is needed to account for what we see because Scientists are finding life is far to complex and varied.

That makes no sense and hints towards you not actually understanding what natural selection (and by extension, evolution) is really all about.

Except the explanations used to attribute selection as the cause are unsupported and inadequate to account for what is being found.

What explanation singles out natural seleciton as being the sole "cause" of what, exactly?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Only the science of yesterday supports the Neo-Darwinian theory. The science of today is disputing that

Is it? How come the scientific community, you know - the people that actually do the science, seems to be unaware of this?

My understanding comes from my academic background

LOL!
Thanks for the laugh. I guess.

It is a logical fallacy to discount everything I have learned as irrelevant becuase I happen to have faith.

But it is not a fallacy to discard your nonsense due it being rooted in sheer ignorance on evolution theory.