Why I do not accept evolution part two.

[Speedwell]

And that disagrees with my point, how?

Explain your theory.

What part of "explain" are you all not understanding?

I've tried that several times with you. We have never gotten past randomly distributed variation before you lose track of the difference between "explaining what evolution says" and "asserting that it is true," and start demanding "proof."

 

[Kenny'sID]

Aren't you the one that says he does not read links?

Please, you're clutching a straws now. Yes I said that, so what? I am also the one that said a few posts up, same thing I've always said, and gave reason for saying it...it needs to all be done here.

Hit the Foxholes fellers, here comes that "Bombardment" lol

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please, you're clutching a straws now. Yes I said that, so what? I am also the one that said a few posts up, same thing I've always said, and gave reason for saying it...it needs to all be done here.

Hit the Foxholes fellers, here comes that "Bombardment" lol

Nope, you are misusing that term.

I gave you a more than reasonable offer. It would not take long to go over the concepts of scientific evidence and the scientific method. Why are you afraid to even discuss that? By ignoring my questions you as much as admit that you are wrong. I am ready to answer questions for you once you demonstrate that you can understand the answers. If you cannot understand the answers what is the point in trying to help you?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nothing misleading about it. It shows how new species arise. Your classification system is faulty. That is the problem. Once again, you want a "change of kind" evolution does not predict that.

Do you understand how your lineage can be traced all the way back to single celled eukaryotes without a a "change of kind"?

semantically yes, by plotting everything on a tree you can always cite the name of a common branch of course. And call everything the same kind

So it's a subjective classification: case in point:

'we are still apes[] no change of kind"

and

"Humans did not evolve from apes, gorillas or chimps. We share a common ancestor" Live Science

and

Whether humans are apes depends on culturally embedded ways we frame our work in science, anthropologist Barbara J. King.

so it depends on who you ask
but in substance- a classification that deems a single celled bacteria and a human being as 'the same thing' is obviously not particularly useful in determining how one changed into the other!

One more point. We are not limited to an existing menu. Variation is how new traits arise. Natural selection filters those changes.

correct- so natural selection is limited to an existing menu, it can only filter, it cannot itself originate anything as the title suggests, it can only select from what has already been originated- no way around that

That leaves all the creative origination to- variation, which in turn originates in 'random mutation' according to ToE, aka pure blind chance

i.e. a more representative title for the theory would be
"The origin of species by pure fluke'

I think his editor nixed that that one though

 

[Subduction Zone]

semantically yes, by plotting everything on a tree you can always cite the name of a common branch of course. And call everything the same kind

So it's a subjective classification: case in point:



and



and



so it depends on who you ask
but in substance- a classification that deems a single celled bacteria and a human being as 'the same thing' is obviously not particularly useful in determining how one changed into the other!



correct- so natural selection is limited to an existing menu, it can only filter, it cannot itself originate anything as the title suggests, it can only select from what has already been originated- no way around that

That leaves all the creative origination to- variation, which in turn originates in 'random mutation' according to ToE, aka pure blind chance

Both together have very little creative power between them, I submit to you!

No, it is not subjective. It is testable. We can test what we should see when new technologies come around and they should support that tree.

You are misapplying terminology at best.

For example when DNA sequencing first became a thing creationists all thought that it would refute evolution. There was that possibility. We did not know if it would support the tree of life or not. If creationism was true there would be no reason for it to do so. Instead the DNA evidence for evolution is so strong that it is undeniable due to DNA evidence.

And you did not understand your own sources. Instead of making claims at best you should be asking questions right now. The DNA evidence is what convinced biologists that we are apes. A chimpanzee is more closely related to you than it is to a gorilla. If we are not apes, then our closest relative is not either. Moving up a step gorillas, chimps, and man are more closely related to each other than orangutans. You can see pretty soon that we all have to be apes.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You claimed to be "game". You need to qualify. So far you have run away like most creationists.

Completely untruthful. I'm not running (except for the bombardment lol...HERE COMES ANOTHER!) I'm asking you to "qualify" me.

Someone start counting how many ways they can say "No, Im not game and never will be because understanding, then discussing it reveals details, and the devil is dying to get out of those details and expose "evolution" for what it truly is.....rediculous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Completely untruthful. I'm not running (except for the bombardment lol...HERE COMES ANOTHER!) I'm asking you to "qualify" me.

Someone start counting how many ways they can say "No, Im not game and never will be because understanding, then discussing it reveals details, and the devil is dying to get out of those details and expose "evolution" for what it truly is.....rediculous.

Yes, you are I asked you some reasonable questions and they scare you so much that not only can you not answer them. You can't even quote them in your posts. That is running away:

You will have to participate. Your first step is to answer these questions:

Is there scientific evidence for evolution? If not why not? And if there is why can that claim be made?

The same questions apply to creationism. Is there scientific evidence for creationism? If not why not? If there is how would you justify that claim?

EDIT: It is not proper to say that I am not game. I am not the one that has displayed complete ignorance of the basics and fear to discuss them. That would be you. Your demand is akin to someone demanding that others need to teach him calculus when long division is beyond his means. First you must demonstrate an understanding of the basics of science.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I've tried that several times with you. We have never gotten past randomly distributed variation before you lose track of the difference between "explaining what evolution says" and "asserting that it is true," and start demanding "proof."

Kaploooi!!

More talk, forget about what you claim happened in the past, do it here where everyone can see everyone else's reaction to everything. How can I be more clear and more fair?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Kaploooi!!

More talk, forget about what you claim happened in the past, do it here where everyone can see everyone else's reaction to everything. How can I be more clear and more fair?

I know I know! By answering my questions:

You will have to participate. Your first step is to answer these questions:

Is there scientific evidence for evolution? If not why not? And if there is why can that claim be made?

The same questions apply to creationism. Is there scientific evidence for creationism? If not why not? If there is how would you justify that claim?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Yes, you are I asked you some reasonable questions and they scare you so much that not only can you not answer them. You can't even quote them in your posts. That is running away:

You will have to participate. Your first step is to answer these questions:

Is there scientific evidence for evolution? If not why not? And if there is why can that claim be made?

The same questions apply to creationism. Is there scientific evidence for creationism? If not why not? If there is how would you justify that claim?

No "scare", if I answer then it will simply be, "You don't understand science" I'm not going to keep doing that. You need to explain everything you think we don't get and do away with that excuse one and for all first.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, it is not subjective. It is testable. We can test what we should see when new technologies come around and they should support that tree.

You are misapplying terminology at best.

"Humans did not evolve from apes, gorillas or chimps. We share a common ancestor" Live Science
and

Whether humans are apes depends on culturally embedded ways we frame our work in science, anthropologist Barbara J. King.

^ 'not my misapplications' merely pointing out that many secular scientists today disagree that we evolved from 'apes'- because we can't be exactly sure what that common ancestor was now- it used to be 'Piltdown Man' which was far more definite- not any more.

So the question becomes- if man's ancestor should still be called an ape- is that demanded by the evidence? or the theory?

For example when DNA sequencing first became a thing creationists all thought that it would refute evolution. There was that possibility. We did not know if it would support the tree of life or not. If creationism was true there would be no reason for it to do so. Instead the DNA evidence for evolution is so strong that it is undeniable due to DNA evidence.

I can't argue for creationists, but DNA records go back but a blink of an eye in evolutionary history- it is certainly not 'undeniable evidence' that a bacteria mutated into a human being through a series of errors!

 

[Subduction Zone]

No "scare", if I answer then it will simply be, "You don't understand science" I'm not going to keep doing that. You need to explain everything you think we don't get and do away with that excuse one and for all first.

No, your answers will tell us if you understand science or not. Or we could skip the questions and have a discussion on the concepts of scientific evidence and the scientific method. Your continued demonstrated fear is why you cannot demand answers to more difficult problems. If you deny evidence once you pass I will simply refer back to the basics and how the evidence goes by what is science.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I know I know! By answering my questions:

You will have to participate. Your first step is to answer these questions:

Is there scientific evidence for evolution? If not why not? And if there is why can that claim be made?

The same questions apply to creationism. Is there scientific evidence for creationism? If not why not? If there is how would you justify that claim?

I'm not going to keep telling you the same thing, just do it or make excuses not to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Humans did not evolve from apes, gorillas or chimps. We share a common ancestor" Live Science
and

Whether humans are apes depends on culturally embedded ways we frame our work in science, anthropologist Barbara J. King.

^ 'not my misapplications' merely pointing out that many secular scientists today disagree that we evolved from 'apes'- because we can't be exactly sure what that common ancestor was now- it used to be 'Piltdown Man' which was far more definite- not any more.

So the question becomes- if man's ancestor should still be called an ape- is that demanded by the evidence? or the theory?



I can't argue for creationists, but DNA records go back but a blink of an eye in evolutionary history- it is certainly not 'undeniable evidence' that a bacteria mutated into a human being through a series of errors!

"Live Science" is not a very good source. It is a popular science source so they get their claims wrong. That was a poorly written sentence since they dropped a qualifier. It should have said "Humans did not evolve from modern apes, gorillas, or chimps. We share a common ancestor." It is what the context implies, but you are at best purposefully misunderstanding it. The common ancestor that we share with them was an ape and we are still apes. Remember, change of kind is a creationist strawman argument.

The evidence says that our ancestor was an ape. We are still apes. The classification has changed because scientists have realized that the old classification was artificial.

 

[Speedwell]

correct- so natural selection is limited to an existing menu, it can only filter, it cannot itself originate anything as the title suggests, it can only select from what has already been originated- no way around that

Correct.

That leaves all the creative origination to- variation, which in turn originates in 'random mutation' according to ToE, aka pure blind chance

Not correct. That is not what the theory of evolution says. Each new generation of a species is produced with variation. No individual offspring is quite like its parent(s). The effect is to present a range of variants to the environment for selection. If you plot these differences they form a random distribution (think: bell curve). That's why the theory is called the theory of evolution by random variation and natural selection, not unpredictable genetic mutation and natural selection. Genetic mutations contribute to the production of random variation, but they are not the sole cause of it. So, no flukes. Just the orderly production of randomly distributed variation, generation by generation.

i

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not going to keep telling you the same thing, just do it or make excuses not to.

I am not wasting my time on you. I gave you a more than reasonable offer. I am aware of your history. You have quite a bit to atone for. Why do my questions frighten you? Why does the concept of evidence frighten you? It appears that you know that you are wrong.

You will have to participate. Your first step is to answer these questions:

Is there scientific evidence for evolution? If not why not? And if there is why can that claim be made?

The same questions apply to creationism. Is there scientific evidence for creationism? If not why not? If there is how would you justify that claim?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Correct.

Not correct. That is not what the theory of evolution says. Each new generation of a species is produced with variation. No individual offspring is quite like its parent(s). The effect is to present a range of variants to the environment for selection. If you plot these differences they form a random distribution (think: bell curve). That's why the theory is called the theory of evolution by random variation and natural selection, not unpredictable genetic mutation and natural selection. Genetic mutations contribute to the production of random variation, but they are not the sole cause of it. So, no flukes. Just the orderly production of randomly distributed variation, generation by generation.

i

I should have caught that. In one part of his post he was concentrating on natural selection and ignoring variation and then within the same post he only concentrated on variation and ignored natural selection.

How many times does on need to repeat both work together? Yes, variation is random, but natural selection is not. Both working together means that evolution is not a random.

One cannot refute evolution by referring to natural selection alone. One cannot refute evolution by referring to variation alone. Wash rinse repeat.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, I need to walk for an hour or two to burn off some calories. Plenty of time to answer my two questions. Any creationist can answer them:

You will have to participate. Your first step is to answer these questions:

Is there scientific evidence for evolution? If not why not? And if there is why can that claim be made?

The same questions apply to creationism. Is there scientific evidence for creationism? If not why not? If there is how would you justify that claim?

And yes, proper social distancing will be maintained.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I am not wasting my time on you.

I already as much as said...of course you aren't.

 

[pitabread]

all you need do is ask him to explain to you what he says you don't understand, and do it all right here so it can be debated along the way by different people with knowledge on the situation, and that'll be the end of it.

There is no debate here though. That's what you've never really understood.

This is about those with factual knowledge about modern biology versus those that don't have it and have no interest in learning about it.

As people like you and Aussie Pete are firmly in the latter category, any discussion is moot. Until you're willing to learn, nothing will change.

In his mind, one will never have enough knowledge to make up their own mind about so-called evolution, so you have no right to disagree with it, yet when you ask for that knowledge...well, do so, and see what happens.

The knowledge is free. I have an entire thread dedicated to free educational resources on biology and evolution: Educational resources for learning about biology and evolution

I've pointed them to you repeatedly in our discussions. What always happens is you refuse to learn.