Theory of Evolution

Tell us a little about yourself.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Averroes wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:14 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:54 pm There's no single comprehensive link. The information is spread all over the place. I can give you examples.

https://www.ck12.org/book/ck-12-biology ... ion/10.21/
Is this what you referred previously as peer reviewed scientific journal?! You are not serious dude, this is propaganda material for high school students in the US. Now, I understand why you are so misinformed.
No, it's not a scientific journal, it's a basic primer on what sorts on things you can find in the fossil record and what they say about evolution.

The burden of evidence is indeed on the people claiming evolution is true, you're absolutely right! That burden has been met and then some, which is why the scientific community at large accepts it as fact. The burden has been met. If you wish to contradict the established fact, the burden is on you to show why the scientific community has misinterpreted that evidence. Otherwise you're convincing no one.

You're unwillingness to look at any evidence doesn't change that.

I'm not here to prove to you that evolution is true, as I've said before. I'm here to show to reasonable people that your statement that the picture of evolution hasn't changed over the past 160 years is false. That's it. That's entirely independent of the claim that evolution is true. Even people who believe evolution is false should be able to see that the picture has changed. There are many times more fossils than there were before, those all contribute to the picture. We have DNA, which we hadn't discovered in Darwin's time, and that contributes to the picture.

Even if you disagree with the picture, it's undeniable by any honest person that the picture has changed.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Walker »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 3:10 pmI don't know that there's any evidence whatsoever that Darwin thought about epigenetics even once in his life.
I doubt if the word even existed.

However, he suspected that natural selection caused by behavior does not result in a new species, which accounts for why scientists have sought the missing link. I read somewhere that science has recently claimed to have found the missing link in some old dirt.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Walker wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:48 pm However, he suspected that natural selection caused by behavior does not result in a new species, which accounts for why scientists have sought the missing link.
Is there a specific quote of his that you're referring to when you say this?
Averroes
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Averroes »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:22 pm
Averroes wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:14 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:54 pm There's no single comprehensive link. The information is spread all over the place. I can give you examples.

https://www.ck12.org/book/ck-12-biology ... ion/10.21/
Is this what you referred previously as peer reviewed scientific journal?! You are not serious dude, this is propaganda material for high school students in the US. Now, I understand why you are so misinformed.
No, it's not a scientific journal, it's a basic primer on what sorts on things you can find in the fossil record and what they say about evolution.
Okay, it was just a primer. Now, send your references to the peer reviewed scientific journals that you find convincing and let me read.
Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:22 pmThe burden of evidence is indeed on the people claiming evolution is true, you're absolutely right! That burden has been met and then some, which is why the scientific community at large accepts it as fact. The burden has been met. If you wish to contradict the established fact, the burden is on you to show why the scientific community has misinterpreted that evidence. Otherwise you're convincing no one.
What are you talking about? For now, it is just you making unfounded claims about you having some supposed evidence about the theory of evolution which evidence even though I am insisting you provide, you have not done so. You hiding behind some undefined "scientific community" as the reason for your belief in the theory of evolution is just another instance of argumentum ad populum (aka bandwagon argument). So in effect you are saying that you believe in the theory of evolution because some undefined "scientific community" says so!!! I can understand that, it's call faith.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Flannel Jesus »

You made the positive claim that after 160 years of science, nothing has changed in the realm of evolution. Your inability to afford access to journals that discuss that evidence is not proof that nothing has changed. You made the positive claim, ball's in your court to prove it.
Averroes
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Averroes »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:22 pm I'm here to show to reasonable people that your statement that the picture of evolution hasn't changed over the past 160 years is false. That's it.
Now, it's going to be my fault that you don't understand English! I quoted Dr Denton twice already on that but you don't seem to understand what he is saying. I will try again, but I suspect you will forget that very soon too!

Dr Denton wrote in Evolution, a theory in crisis:

"There have been massive advances and discoveries in many areas of biology since Evolution was first published. These developments have transformed biology and evolutionary thought. Yet orthodox evolutionary theory is unable to explain the origins of various taxa-defining innovations."
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Care to explain what that bolded part means to you? What is an example of a taxa defining innovation that needs explaining?
Averroes
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Averroes »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 5:08 pm Care to explain what that bolded part means to you? What is an example of a taxa defining innovation that needs explaining?
As I suspected, you are not even familiar with basic biological taxonomy. No wonder, you are not getting what Dr Denton is saying. These terms predate Darwin by about a century. It was Carl Linnaeus a Swedish botanist, zoologist, taxonomist, and physician who formalised binomial nomenclature, the modern system of naming organisms. He is known as the "father of modern taxonomy". Read a bit about him and get familiar with evolutionary biological terminology before trying to engage with someone on the matter who knows the subject.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Flannel Jesus »

It's a classic God of the gaps argument. "I cannot explain this particular evolutionarily process, therefore God must have done it!"

At least now we're past the idea that there's no new evidence over the last 160 years.
Averroes
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Averroes »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 5:29 pm It's a classic God of the gaps argument. "I cannot explain this particular evolutionarily process, therefore God must have done it!"
Classic red herring. I did not mention God, the Almighty even once in my previous responses to you!!! And I did that on purpose, so that you would not find an excuse to change the subject! I understand that you had to try the red herring though, but it's a failed attempt with me! As the saying goes, a drowning man will clutch at a straw. Now that you have brought the Almighty to the discussion, I may do so too, if God wills! Thanks. :D
Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 5:29 pmAt least now we're past the idea that there's no new evidence over the last 160 years.
Evidence of what?
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Averroes wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 5:43 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 5:29 pm It's a classic God of the gaps argument. "I cannot explain this particular evolutionarily process, therefore God must have done it!"
Classic red herring. I did not mention God, the Almighty even once in my previous responses to you!!!
Yes, this isn't about you, this is about the dude who you keep quoting.
Evidence of what?
Earlier in the conversation, I asked this:

> You believe that, since Darwin's idea, the scientific community hasn't made any advancements or discoveries justifying a higher degree of certainty than what Darwin had?

And you said this:

> Now, it is not just me saying that but many of the members of the so called "scientific community" (as you referred to) who says that.

Ironically, the man who you quoted would disagree explicitly with that belief. Denton does not believe there's been no evidence for evolution over the last 160 years. He believes in evolution, and he understands and doesn't contradict the evidence for evolution.
Averroes
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Averroes »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 5:47 pm
Averroes wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 5:43 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 5:29 pm It's a classic God of the gaps argument. "I cannot explain this particular evolutionarily process, therefore God must have done it!"
Classic red herring. I did not mention God, the Almighty even once in my previous responses to you!!!
Yes, this isn't about you, this is about the dude who you keep quoting.
That's even worst then, because the dude is an expert with a medical degree and a Phd in the field from the prestigious Kings college London and he was an atheist when he realised the numerous contradictions in the theory of evolution.
Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 5:47 pm
Evidence of what?
Earlier in the conversation, I asked this:

> You believe that, since Darwin's idea, the scientific community hasn't made any advancements or discoveries justifying a higher degree of certainty than what Darwin had?

And you said this:

> Now, it is not just me saying that but many of the members of the so called "scientific community" (as you referred to) who says that.

Ironically, the man who you quoted would disagree explicitly with that belief. Denton does not believe there's been no evidence for evolution over the last 160 years. He believes in evolution, and he understands and doesn't contradict the evidence for evolution.
You are still not understanding. You are equivocating the terms "advancements or discoveries" in biology with "evidence of evolution"! These terms are not synonymous at all. As Dr Denton said, even though there were "massive advances and discoveries in many areas of biology", none of these advancements or discoveries ever came even close to providing any evidence of the theory of evolution.
This is philosophy, you have to pay careful attention to what is being said.
Averroes
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Averroes »

Guillermolis wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 10:58 am My intention is to find people who have deeper knowledge of the theory and who are willing to answer some questions, maybe basic, I don't know, what I want to ask.

Can I count on any of you?
Thank you.
I hope that this short discussion has answered some of your questions. If you have any specific question on the subject, you can still ask and if I know I will answer if God wills.
Sometimes leading evolutionists have came up with theories that are so ridiculous that even their own peers find it difficult to swallow! For example, someone talked about the 98% similarities in DNA between chimps and humans as supposed evidence of evolution. You must have heard of that. But seldom do these people mention that we also share 98% similarity in DNA with pigs! In 2013, this has lead a leading evolutionists, Dr Eugene McCarthy, to theorise that humans may have been the offspring of a female chimp having mated with a male pig! Some people have asked very interesting questions about that, like whether it was a love story in the style of Romeo and Juliette between them! lol. Reading evolutionists theology always gives me laughing material.
Anyway, if you too are finding evolutionary theology to be difficult for your intellect to digest, it means you have a healthy intellect. Don't worry about it, you can safely regard it as nonsense. Instead, it will be more beneficial to you to study subjects like medicine, or mathematics or computer science or engineering fields that can benefit your community as well.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Flannel Jesus »

I managed to get a download of the JSTOR article for free (thanks to the kindness of strangers)

https://www.swisstransfer.com/d/fb243aa ... fb7bdff4cb

Not sure how long the link will be up, get it while it's hot!
Averroes
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Averroes »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:55 pm I managed to get a download of the JSTOR article for free (thanks to the kindness of strangers)

https://www.swisstransfer.com/d/fb243aa ... fb7bdff4cb

Not sure how long the link will be up, get it while it's hot!
Well received. Your effort and that of the strangers are appreciated.

However, the article confirms what Dr Denton already wrote: "I argued that the biological realm is fundamentally discontinuous."

In your article, the author confirms that by writing:
  • Darwin’s observations about bias and completeness would today mostly fall under the heading of taphonomy, which is the study of the processes of preservation and their effects on the information present in the paleonto- logical record (Behrensmeyer et al. 2000). In many re- spects, Darwin’s views on the shortcomings of the fossil record are still credible today, and some of his concerns about preservation bias and geological incompleteness merit extensive treatment in modern overviews (Kidwell and Flessa 1996; Martin 1999; Behrensmeyer et al. 2000; Holland 2000; Kidwell and Holland 2002). There are in- deed usually large temporal gaps separating preserved geological units (Peters 2006) and between individual beds within units (Kowalewski and Bambach 2003); in terms of strict temporal completeness, the fossil record is very often more gap than record.
The other thing I liked about the article is that the authors are honest in acknowledging the speculative and subjective nature of evolutionary biology. For example:
  • "In part because of the subjectivity involved in interpreting evolutionary patterns, published overviews arrived at incompatible conclusions about the relative importance of gradual change versus stasis and punctuation in fossil lineages (Gingerich 1985; Erwin and Anstey 1995; Jackson and Cheetham 1999; Levinton 2001; Gould 2002)."
The authors do not conceal the speculative nature of their work as many other evolutionists do. The language of the article itself is such that it leaves no ambiguity as to the speculative nature of their conclusions. I appreciate their honesty. There are many more statements in the article that confirms what Dr Denton has already said about the theory of evolution in his book. For example, in the conclusion, the author writes:
  • Still, we are not as close as one would like to realizing Darwin’s vision of an integrated understanding of evo- lution. Even estimates of the same quantities, such as speciation and extinction rates, are difficult to compare between paleontological and biological studies because of the discrepancies in phylogenetic and temporal scales.
As long as they are honest and acknowledge the speculative nature of their study, I have no problem at all. Everyone is free to believe in what they want as long as they are not doing harm to others and imposing their subjective beliefs on others.
Post Reply