Denial of evolution III
- Thread starter Hercules Rockefeller
- Start date
- Status
This can best be summed up as 'punctuated creationism' in which different species are magically created at different time eras in earth's history.
Evolution requires no such punctuated magic, and the missing fossil record simply gives a huge avenue of research for current study, which is what many people are doing, resulting in continuing discoveries of missing 'intermediate' forms. The transition from fish to land animal is truly interesting, as the 'intermediate' forms are turning out to be somewhat different than what had been 'envisioned' as would be the case. This gives a clearer view of how evolution was working.
Personally, I enjoy reading more about plant evolution than animal evolution. It appears far more complex, to me.
Its been observed today, in real time, speciation and even new beneficial mutations.
By that illogic so do air conditions, refrigerators, dust bunnies and planets! Are you going to tell me those things don't exist?
Again, what do you define as transitional? We got a whole ton of fossil tracing the decent of man. Add to that genetics which confirms and even excels at tracing the evolution of man and other organisms over the fossil record. Why look for rocks when the evidence is right in every cell of our bodies!
Not quite, biological evolution only covers the issue of life evolving, not originating, that is abiogenesis. Also there is nothing that forbids assuming that mutation is not random, although there is no evidence it non-random, there is also no evidence that it is in fact completely random, and thus there is no evidence against a destining directing deity whom operates though natural processes like evolution.
So is the theory on where rain comes from by that logic. Evolution as a processes is as fundamental as rainfall and sunshine, be it with living organism, corporations in an economy, religions, etc, as long as you have competing systems and a mechanism for changes and selection, evolution exists and has been witnessed!
I called out Harun Yahya - an Islamicist from Turkey actually named Adnan Oktar - about five or six years ago to an informal and anonymous internet debate. The entire website was filled with specious assertions and mindless propaganda, I told him.
He never wrote back.
:facepalm:
Oh puh-leeeese.
That's the best you can do? Mindlessly parrot a rote-learned list of the stupidest ill-informed wilfully-ignorant creationist claptrap that has been refuted more times on the interweb than I've had hot dinners?
It takes very little effort to prove to yourself that your assertions are total rubbish. Some of the good folk here will likely help you out. But I am sure you aren't interested in displaying any integrity and won’t bother listening to what is said. On that basis I was going to simply delete your offerings as a waste of everyone’s time, but I decided that the worse thing to do was let them stand as a testament to your lack of academic integrity.
Here is an interesting set of arguments that came to me. The theory of evolution is based on selective advantage. Evolution occurs via random changes and is not about logical progression to the future, but has no sense of direction.
Say instead of just the basis for evolutinoary theory, this was also the group philosophy that underlies the human motivation in this area of science. The group called evolutionists, would not be about progression, but would work for no sense of direction. All logical theories would need to be censored to maintain lack of direction, so random rules the roost.
Philosphically, this area of science would also be about selective advantage in the political and social arena. The group would apply resources and social pressure to maintain this advantage. The future of this science could thereby be made unpredictable, like the theory. It is not about progression and a sense of direction.
This philosophy, when applied to science, gives one the impression of a cult, that can use power tactics to maintain advantage in culture. Progression is not important but needs to be censored for all to work properly.
When the creationist came along, it was not entirely about truth but about who will have selective advantage. Any sense of direction, such as God, goes against the philosphy and needs to be censored. Even alternate science that looks for logical paths, needs to be censored for advantage. The cult of random can not remain irrational, if order is introduced.
Say instead of just the basis for evolutinoary theory, this was also the group philosophy that underlies the human motivation in this area of science. The group called evolutionists, would not be about progression, but would work for no sense of direction. All logical theories would need to be censored to maintain lack of direction, so random rules the roost.
Philosphically, this area of science would also be about selective advantage in the political and social arena. The group would apply resources and social pressure to maintain this advantage. The future of this science could thereby be made unpredictable, like the theory. It is not about progression and a sense of direction.
This philosophy, when applied to science, gives one the impression of a cult, that can use power tactics to maintain advantage in culture. Progression is not important but needs to be censored for all to work properly.
When the creationist came along, it was not entirely about truth but about who will have selective advantage. Any sense of direction, such as God, goes against the philosphy and needs to be censored. Even alternate science that looks for logical paths, needs to be censored for advantage. The cult of random can not remain irrational, if order is introduced.
Last edited:
Sure we do. We have fossils of man, for example, that covers that range. Bogs preserve human flesh and go back about 3000 years and preserved humans (mummies) going back about 6000.
There are loads of intermediate forms both in the fossil record and living today.
We've observed around a dozen new species come into being through evolution.
Not once you understand what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is. Crystals form; that's order from disorder. Yet the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not violated.
There are tens of thousands.
While random chance plays a role, it is certainly not "evolution proceeds," any more than random chance determines the course of your life.
Google "pictures transitional fossils" and you will find thousands.
Darwinian evolution, biological evolution, yes. but there are other forms of evolution that do have direction, the pseudo-lamarckian evolution of technology and civilization. Take microchips for example, which evolved via a conscious forced (computer engineer and scientists) microchips evolve millions to time faster then biological evolution, also unlike biological evolution which must be based on ancestor designs, microprocessors are often designed from scratch, without carrying around ancestral features which become increasing vestigial and illogical with each generation. Society also evolves with happiness and order as its direction, laws and social orders change to match the demands of the people as the people quest to live better and prosper.
Darwinian and biological evolution operate randomly because that what evidence has suggested, mutations appearing by random events, detected repeatedly, mutation caused by non-random events (aside for genetic engineering done by humans) as not been, ergo we assume the former is universal. Now just because we lack evidence for the latter does not mean its not true, its just irrelevant to sciences: if it can't be detected or predicted upon then its outside the realm of science. For example lets say airplanes fly because angels hold them aloft, now science found aerodynamic properties which appear to do the trick, so much so that better planes have been built based on theories on those properties, planes that preformed according to theory. That does not negate the possibility that angels are actually doing all the work rather than airflow, but that is irrelevant to science: science only operates on what can be detected and predicted upon. The whole of the universe may in fact be a trick, a lie, and science only cares to understanding the details of the lie, not to see beyond it.
Than science is just a tool, like religious dogma, science can be a dogma used by the dogmatic. Even so I disagree with the final statement: science has always been about finding truth even at the cost of reversing everything believed before, and science has had many upheavals where previous held theories had to be discarded for new ones, in light of evidence. Of course followers of the previous theories, who put so much energy and time into those theories are rarely happy and quick to yield to successor theories; at least they yield far easier than religious faithful whom even today cause whole crusades of vicious democide to enforcer their beliefs on to others.
The fossil data of evolution bring to light a possible unique anomaly in the scientific method. Let me explain this with an example. Say I made a fancy design with popcorn on the grass, where all the popcorn touches to form a continuous figure. I leave the design out for several weeks so the birds can randomly eat. This is an analogy for the fossil data where only a small fraction of the original data is left.
Since science requires that we infer from the hard data, we may not be able to properly infer the reality of the original continuous popcorn design, due to 99.9 percent lost popcorn and the discontinuous remains. The best science theory for the leftover popcorn might be a discontinuous original figure without any fancy shape. That would be consistent with the scientific method, but would still be out of touch with realty, since the original reality will not be supported by the hard data. If you insist on the continuous design you would be out of touch. Only the wrong inference would be called correct?
Is it possible to ever reach the truth with that data?
Since science requires that we infer from the hard data, we may not be able to properly infer the reality of the original continuous popcorn design, due to 99.9 percent lost popcorn and the discontinuous remains. The best science theory for the leftover popcorn might be a discontinuous original figure without any fancy shape. That would be consistent with the scientific method, but would still be out of touch with realty, since the original reality will not be supported by the hard data. If you insist on the continuous design you would be out of touch. Only the wrong inference would be called correct?
Is it possible to ever reach the truth with that data?
First of all, Charles Darwin (and Alfred Russel Wallace independently) cottoned onto it even without all the fossil evidence we have today. Second of all, the fossil record is far from the only clue we have.
Last edited:
Sorry, leopold99, but you are quite simply beyond reasoning with, as we can see here. Why in the world would I (or anyone else) want to do that all over again?
You (like many others here) are in a dream world, and you don't want to wake up. Find someone else who's willing to take another shot at trying to snap you out of it.
yeah, one of my posts from that thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2716879&postcount=432
Genetics?
how does genetics prove a tree can turn into a man?
especially when science hasn't demonstrated it possible?
you should ask yourself why my posts that are taken from respected science sources are being deleted.
Okay leopold99, I originally deleted your recent posts as they are the usual examples of your lack of academic integrity and intellectual dishonesty. But I’ve reinstated them as I don’t want to give you any ammunition that, in your fantasy world, you count as your delusions being vindicated.
So, as to your link:
There is nothing more to say. You were caught in the does evolution exist thread quotation mining and quoting out-of-context. You were caught doing it by multiple people with multiple quotations. The public record is there for all to see; you can direct people to it all you like. Your abominable display of wilful ignorance in that thread is closed and you will not be allowed to re-start it here. You were trolling then and if you do it here you’ll be banned.
- Status