Denial of evolution III

Then the logical thing to do is to inform the moderators of your concerns and they will let me know if my behavior is violating forum rules. I'll wait one day while you make the appropriate contacts to address your accusations.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I believe in micro, not macro, anyone with me?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ahh the missing link

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1. There is no point in informing the moderators since the modus operandi of this forum involves favouring quantity over quality in its posts and posters.
2. This has nothing to do with breaking or adhering to forum rules. This has everything to do with your piss poor attitude.
3. Your quoted post is an example of what I refer to. Nowhere do you directly address the criticisms I make of your behaviour. You side step these by introducing the red herring of a rule violation. That is either evidence of low IQ (and there is adequate evidence you are not stupid) or cynical disregard for concerns about your behaviour.
4. And after you have waited one day? What will you do then? Is that some form of threat?
5. I've made the appropriate contact to address my accusation. I'm making it to you.

 

no the modus operandi of the moderators is to slack off and be as loose as a veges whore. They don't ban someone unless they are really causing serious problems, a few ad hominems and intellectual trolling usually passes under their radar. They have even ban former moderators like spuriousmonkey and SAM, but the former had to go quite insane to be banished and the latter begged her way back in.

 

Periodically someone decides to challenge evolution yet again. There is a vigorous, nasty debate. In the end, the creationists don't change our views and we don't change theirs. Since nothing is ever accomplished, I suggest that we just ignore such challenges in the future. Let's concentrate on exchanges that result in something positive being accomplished.

 

You haven't responded yet.

How about now?

Lots of people - evolutionary theory is actually difficult, deep, unintuitve stuff; there is a large audience for that kind of propagated confusion.

 

They're the same thing. "Macro" just means "a long time" when it comes to evolution.

You really can't believe one without believing the other. It's like believing in microerosion (i.e. a washed out road) but not macroerosion (i.e. the Grand Canyon) or microgravity (i.e. your glass falls on the floor) but not macrogravity (i.e. the moon orbits the earth.)

 

You're off topic, Ophiolite.
I've heard your concerns and I find no factual basis for your accusations.
Further, if you are unwilling to do your part as a member due to your lack of moderator confidence then you need to exercise your own self control and advice and either ignore my postings or allow a pre-programed selection do it for you.

I fully recognize emotionalism will likely motivate you to continue your smear campaign but I assure you I will not take offense at any of it nor will I acknowledge them. This is not a general avoidance of your post. If you make a logical statement directed to me now or at sometime in the future I find you behaving civil and reasonable and rational enough to hold discussion I will acknowledge your statements and perhaps I will afford you a reply. Until then I think I've entertained your off topic concerns patiently and as amicably as I believe you are due as a member of the forum.

You quoted the response.

 

I quoted your post that was formatted as a reply - it was not a response to the post, the meaning of the words posted.

If you are having comprehension difficulties, specific questions about the actual post, the words I wrote and their meaning, would be appropriate. Otherwise, a simple response is all that is necessary.

 

Of course not you haven't given me the detail I require for which to make such a reply.

Negative, sir.
I have no interest in assisting your interrogations. If you can't spell out the exact nature of the contradiction by the full contextual parameters (which you have not) I have little to respond to beyond the less than overt hostility and obnoxious disparagement. It's not discourse you have an interest in, I highly suspect your only objective is to be contentious and I am your target of choice as is made evident by your opening "assault", the blustering and spastic dithering about. This isn't a contest and I simply have no interest in sparing with your before all creation in some animal-esque test of wills.

I'm sure you have your...intentions but I really don't see why I should enable this behavior. So of course you know what that means. If you have nothing more than reciprocating path of replies planned...then I'll leave you to be contentious all by yourself or you can join up with Fetus and perpetually feed your need for redundancy and strife. As usual I take no offense, there are myriad of personalities both noxious and benign and it's not my habit to be pained by the animosity of complete strangers.

 

No one needs any assistance from you. Issues with your assertions have been clearly and simply described, and you have been invited to deal with an inconsistency in your stated positions.

If you can.

You accept the theory that the earth is spherical, more or less. You reject the theory that living beings arrived at their present forms through a process of evolution. These two theories are based on similar reasoning from similar kinds of evidence (or so several posters here and the general reasoning community believe) and you have offered no justification for discriminating between them as you do. Now is the time.

 

Nope

How does it know when to stop?

 

The suggestion that my attacks on you are emotionally based is offensive and inaccurate, but demonstrates yet again the implicit nastiness of many of your postings. I have every intention of drawing the attention of other members to your disreputable, cynical behaviour, as often as I see fit. You need only change your behaviour to cause this to stop, or place me on Ignore to help you pretend it is not there.

I am willing to concede that you actually may be unaware that your adopted positions are arrogant, passive aggressive and arguably infantile. I am prepared to enter into a discussion with you by pm to explore this issue and help you correct a character defect that I suspect is obvious to several other posters in this thread.

They are seeking to get you to deal with the science and logic of the issues under discussion. I believe this is fruitless until and unless you accept, at least to some degree, that my observations of your behaviour are valid.

 

The presence of your attack... the lack of logic.
Your obsession is your own, sir.

I am decidedly apathetic to your presence.

How kind of you.
You may proceed with private messages.

They and you seek contention. Contention made evident by strings of logical fallacies and emotional appeals. They, like you, are emotionally disrupted by the denial of evolution, thus the opening attacks. Attacks are a logical determination of an entity at war. War is the abandonment of rational negotiating through discussion. I have no use for your hostilities nor do they threaten me, or incite any similar emotional upheaval. They and you are what they are, irrelevant. Your presentation is decidedly off topic. Thank you for your time, Ophiolite. You're dismissed, sir.

 

I don't see how this follows. If the existence of an organism including parts from unrelated genera/families showed evolution to be false (due to there being no lines of decent showing a purely evolutionary path to the creation of the creature), why would that falsifiability show microevolution to be false in the absence of such a creature?

Microevolution, as mentioned previously, differs from macro evolution only in order of magnitude. Adaptation at the individual level is not microevolution, but individual adaptation - no shift in allele frequency in a population is evident. Adaption in a species is evolution, wherein traits better suited for a particular environmental factor replace existing traits less suited - and you are right, we have many example of this.

This adaptation within a species is evidence for evolution as a whole, as the new trait changes the population away from its original genome toward something new. All a species needs to do is repeat this action 50,000 times over a few thousand years, and suddenly there is massive difference evident. In many species, this trend can lead to a splitting of the line much sooner - the recent e. Coli speciation seen in a lab setting is prime evidence of this; all other examples of speciation I posted earlier simply adding to that pile of evidence.

All such examples show one form coming from another form, with lines of decent evident in both the form and in the genes. Tracing genomic similarities in this way, we have no example of species which could not have come about but through extraordinary means requiring a novel creation event. No crocoducks.

 

Bacteria...
As complex as these organisms are and as revealing as their generations have proven to be the scientific community has a tendency to place to much wait on their changes. The conclusion that accumulated genetic traits will invariably reconstruct an lineage assumes there is no limitations yet we have seen limitations to DNA changes. Mutations can't be forced and natural selection is limited to the presence of a cache of current genetic material.

On of the biggest problems I've had with evolutionary musings is the frequent lack of genetic detectors. How does a change become introduced without a detector? As humans we respond to our environment by means of sight, touch, smell and sound. In some cases of evolution it's easy to understand: Genes alter due to heat changes, chemical changes in the environment but many other changes are inexplicable. Spontaneous creation of systems just because their necessary... I fully understand the scope of millions of years but the combination of billions of organic systems working in concert to create a superior form is against probability. And in some cases it appears evolution suggest that time period was not so long.

This is why I can logically accept evolution as a system of change but not a system of creation. The theory doesn't just need to be well supported in that respect. It needs demonstration.
Look at it this way:

A. Earth's 4 Billion Years represent the Best possible Outcome

B. Earth's 4 Billion Years represent the Most improbable Outcome

C. Earth's 4 Billion Years represent the Most Common Outcome

 

There seems to me to be zero probability of that statement being true. Also it seems to reflect zero understanding of how evolution is claimed to proceed.

Now that we know that the genes do code the development of the individual from a single cell and that they can have coping errors as well as entirely new combination in sexual reproduction, it is a logical necessity* that some asexually reproduced individuals will at least occasionally differ from their parent and all sexually reproduced individuals will have at least a million genetic differences from either parent.

Thus the next generation will have individuals with different from the earlier one's abilities to survive as they are differently built from their different genes.

There are three logical possibilities:
(1) The difference makes insignificant change it their probability of reproducing it in a later generation.

(2a) The difference increases their probability of reproducing it in a later generation.

(2b)The difference decreases their probability of reproducing it in a later generation.

(1) & (2b) are consistent with your statement, but (2a) is not.

Are you stating that possibility (2a) does not occur? It clearly does as some very gifted children are often born to less than average intelligence parents.

Can you find any support in logic for your statement that to me seems to be illogical and false?

I admit that one instance of (2a) probably** will not significantly "create a superior form" but if repeated millions of times, it surely will.

---------
*I.e. not "against probability" as you falsely assert without any support.

** Such a large benefitial change in one generation is rare, but possible. They are usually called "hopeful monsters." I am not asserting this is one, but just trying to illutrate how it can happen: It seems reasonable to me that the dragon fly (darning needle and other names) probably evolved from other insects with two wings but then (as man can induce in fruit flies etc. with genetic changes in one generation) a Monster (from the parent's POV) was born with an extra set of wings. As it was better able to lift it relative large weight, it was more successful in catching and mating with "lady dragon flies" as were at least some of her off springs. So in a few thousand years all dragon files had two sets of wings.

 

If I had to guess, it's because we're not addressing the same context.

 

What content did you have in mind that escapes the logic refutation I gave in my post 898? Perhaps a soul that could be God given, not evolved?