Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

Good thing no one is telling you that, then.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Various scientific means are available to date roughly when found fossils lived. We can't be sure when the accumulating changes had produced new species - one than lived under diffent environmental stresses in a different and isolated area than some of its less rapidly changing ancestors did - I.e. one that can not mate and produce fertile offspings - the definition of "new species" - with those of the other region who have changed little as their environment remained essentially constant.

No evolution is NOT "heredity and adaptation" as adaptive changes do like calloused hand from hard manual labor, etc. do not change the DNA past on to the next generation - only genetic mutations can do that.
- - - - - - -
The preá, shown and discussed in post 281, are a very unusual case. We know they can not mate with their still living on the main land ancestors they evolved from in only 8000 years. We also know that this incredibly rapid evolutions was caused by many forcing factors - most important was only the most well fit for survival of each litter, if any, in their new harsh only 4 hectare large environment did not starve to death and there were none eaten by predators, so better genes for that environment spread rapidly through the entire population, which never had more than 40 members.* We know this was done in no more than 8000 years by sea level data - before that their tiny mainly rocky island was connected to the main land. (Evolution of a new specie requires both large environmental change and isolation from where the environment is remaining nearly constant.)

* Probably only 20 or so were in the initial group cut off from the main land by the rising ocean as the ice age's ice melted. The new specie has only half the body mass / half the "don't starve" grass requirements of their ancestors. Being the "runt" of the litter was a survivable advantage, strongly selected for.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No that is complete nonesense. The theory of evolution explains the observations and evidence that new species are descended from other species.

There is no evidence that there was a garden of eden and there is evidence that this could not have happened. An apple did not hit Newton in the head either.

Scientology has nothing to do with science.

 

by refusing to acknowledge these gaps, i believe you might be overlooking some important principles.
for example:
everyone seems to think evolution proceeds as a series of "improvements".
i believe there might be some kind of catalyzing action involved.
not only was the first life catalyzed into being, but the diversity of life is also the result of "catalyzing" action.
goulds concept of spandrels would be the basis of this stuff.

 

Aha..."Nonesene"... my good man

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I wished I had the energy to care but enjoy your state of mind, what is the old saying?? come again "ignorance is transcendal bliss" Beer with a straw
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/proof-of-the-existence-of-god.144082/

 

You are just being a fool. The largest christian sect in the world does not deny evolution. That is evidence that your idiotic conjecture is crap. Evolution has only to do with evidence and nothing to do with religion.

 

that is what irks me the most about topics like this.
you throw out an anomly and everyone starts accusing you of being a creationist.
starts accusing others of being brain dead.
when i first posted these quotes james refered to the group of scientists as being in a state of communal madness.
grumpy refered to my source as a pop sci rag.
others accused lewin of being creationist.

but now, now it's like "what's the big deal"?
"a lack of memory is a weakness".

you know, if i was the author of NAIG, i would have been all in sciences face over this.
the number of people that wrote to science and bitched about the article IS PROOF that it WAS NOT a small deal.
everyone except ayala that is.
and yes, science could have lost a bunch of money over this.

but hey, it was a "misunderstanding", right?
heh, heh, yeah, go tell someone else cause i don't buy it.

you will notice that NAIG makes no indication that they contacted science.
and that is the very FIRST thing that should have been done.

no big deal, but it was big enough to get NAIG to contact ayala.
so, what does ayala do?
he does what any normal person does and bitches to everyone else EXCEPT the horses mouth.
uh, right.

 

You do realise you are argueing with yourself yet again you make assumptions with out even allowing me to state my position so then now I deem you unworthy, for I still love and admire you but do not speak to me again until you have learned to conduct yourself in an adult manner. For you as well lack comprehension you have failed and disappointed me because I though better of you before this revelation. So until you gain comprehension that I deem worthy I will not respond to you until I believe you are worthy of my time, this is a consequence to your failure to comprehend and pays homage to your need of jumping to conclusions without a thorough path of a logical thought structure, this is chess not checkers.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/proof-of-the-existence-of-god.144082/

 

Well let's just pretend that Ayala was contacted and he said that he did not believe that evolution is a viable theory. That still would not matter, if one out of a million disagrees it is meaningless.

Why do you think that Science would lose a buch of money over this?

 

Thanks for admiring and loving me, I must let you know I am married and as such am not 'available'. I thought you did not accept evolution but since you reacted so vehmently to that assumption I must have been incorrect and you actually do accept evolution as a viable theory. Is that correct?

 

It is not evolution that is the problem, but the method in which it takes place now this is a test I give you to see if you can comprehend if you fail I will not respond.

 

incorrect analogy.
it would be more along the lines of "after reviewing the evidence presented by paleontologists i conclude that small changes do not accumulate".
remember, this was/is the foremost evolutionist in the US saying this.
so, it's not just ayala, it's the record origin.
and it's not just a couple of gaps here and there.
these gaps are typical of the record, the norm.

for falsely representing ayala.
i believe a good lawyer could get slander charges brought against science.
you have to also remember that science is a respected scource, honor means a lot to them.
what would be the honorable thing to do here origin?

where does all of this leave us?
ayala said it, that's where.
and he said it in reference to the gaps, right where the transitional fossils should be.

 

Not even close. Not the "foremost evolutionist", not what anyone like him said, not "saying this", and wrong anyway - what difference does it make who says a wrong thing, or asserts falsehoods? They're still falsehoods, so what's the point of claiming they came from this or that supposed authority?

Nobody but creationists thinks that Darwinian evolutionary theory specifies a series of "improvements". Darwinian theory specifically denies that evolution proceeds as a series of "improvements".

There are no established gaps - there are only times and places from which fossils have not yet been found. Since fossils are very sparse and well hidden, no one is surprised by the difficulty of finding them.

Gibberish.

Catalysis runs downhill - in the direction of greater entropy, etc. You need to pick a different term to misuse in reference to vaguely related and irrelevant concepts, for proper confusion.

Gould was in error, and that concept in this application has been more or less debunked - see Dennett, et al.

(Even the spandrels Gould based his approach on turned out to be not "spandrels" as he required - they had developmental function, originally. The consequent search for appropriate "spandrels", like the search for actual irreducible complexities, has been coming up empty. )

 

Actually, I may have found one or two.

No.

It is to discover what we are, what we are made of, where we came from and perhaps where we are going. It conflicts with Biblical literalism (and the literalism of other religions) in that it does not validate their stories. If you wish to believe in a deity, I'm sure there is plenty of philosophical room in which to do that. We cannot prove non-existence, and we certainly cannot prove the non-existence of a magical being, because the contrary answer is always going to be well, magic. That is outside our purview.

Ah, I see!: you are a madman. May I suggest a John Travolta movie, instead of wasting everyone's time?

 

Only if you could not conceive, or had no insight.

 

Silver fox paedomorphotic traits don't represent spandrels? Artificial selection, surely, but in a way any new mutation is a spandrel until the action of selection begins to move its population along some frequency or distributional axis on a phase-space plane.

I don't totally agree with Gould here - I forget why - but it's an interesting concept although it smells a little unfalsifiable without the action of the second phase - selective advantage outside the home system.

 

if evolution proceeds by catalysis then maybe these spandrels are biomolecular in nature.

i think you are aware that for some organic reactions a catalyst is required.
for others, a catalyst greatly speeds up the reaction.
the "junk genes" might be responsible for these catalysts.
IOW, goulds spandrels aren't necessarily structural, they might be biomolecular.

 

You seem like an idiot. Did I pass?