Non-Sense of Macro Evolutionary Faith

[SetiAlpha6]

Claim 1
Overwhelming Evidence for Macro Evolution Exists.

Seems like this Claim really is being made by some people.

But an extraordinary claim like Macro Evolution, requires extraordinary evidence, to be Scientifically valid.

In spite of the known overwhelming odds against it, people seem to hold this as an article of faith anyway, perhaps without any way to prove or disprove it.

This makes no sense to me!

Even the building block theory of Micro Evolution ends in the eventual extinction of any species being modified, from it being genetically corrupted.

Micro Evolution results in dilution of the genetic code in each branch over time reducing the ability of every individual branch to survive over time.

Even Common Sense tells us that harmful mutations must vastly outnumber any rare beneficial mutations. And that Harmful mutations will eventually win the war and kill the species, simply by the numbers alone.

And that even a particular branch of a species that benefits from a rare beneficial mutation, would also be passing on even more harmful mutations than beneficial mutations to its offspring. Ensuring the eventual extinction even of that surviving branch of the species in the future. Again, all you need is basic math to know this.

This is intuitive and self evident to anyone.

So there really better be some overwhelming jaw dropping evidence for Macro Evolution before anyone buys it. I am sure you would agree!

What then is the overwhelming evidence for Macro Evolution?

And, please don’t just say...
Because we are here!!!

Paul Nelson
September 18, 2020

“I spent literally thousands of study hours probing the logical and evidential structure of the theory of natural selection. I wanted to learn about the evidence for selection, but also to satisfy myself — in light of the evidence that selection needed, to explain macroevolution, but which did not exist — that the process, while perfectly real, could not accomplish what Darwin, or Dawkins, or my biology professors (some of them, anyway) thought it could.”

https://evolutionnews.org/2020/09/reform-it-altogether-more-on-the-naturalistic-parabola/

The author of the above article makes the following claim more or less...

Counter Claim 1
No evidence for Macro Evolution exists.

If he is wrong, please provide the overwhelming evidence that can prove Macro Evolution is true.

Oh, and...
Character Assassinations will not suffice!!!
(It is a genuine shame I even have to say that)

I will not be able to respond to all comments.

 

[C C]

Even Common Sense tells us that harmful mutations must vastly outnumber any rare beneficial mutations. And that Harmful mutations will eventually win the war and kill the species, simply by the numbers alone.

Apparently that must be "Common Sense" as the label for a particular cult doctrine or non-editable ideological movement.

Everyday observation isn't telling us that. Worldwide, from 5 to 6 percent of babies are born with detrimental birth defects; and that's with respect to contemporary humans exerting some effort to ensure the survival and persistence of congenital anomalies in the population. (Even more so since refinements in social justice gospel seeking to normalize lesser debilitating outcomes.)

A fractional amount that the non-artificial world -- the rest of the biological domain -- has not been trying to protect over past eons due to lack of such motivated reasoning and feelings at the molecular level, and the same indifference at the scale of the general environment and its happenings.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Apparently that must be "Common Sense" as the label for a particular cult doctrine or non-editable ideological movement.

Everyday observation isn't telling us that. Worldwide, from 5 to 6 percent of babies are born with detrimental birth defects; and that's with respect to contemporary humans exerting some effort to ensure the survival and persistence of congenital anomalies in the population. (Even more so since refinements in social justice gospel seeking to normalize lesser debilitating outcomes.)

A fractional amount that the non-artificial world -- the rest of the biological domain -- has not been trying to protect over past eons due to lack of such motivated reasoning and feelings at the molecular level, and the same indifference at the scale of the general environment and its happenings.

What percent of the population has other forms of genetic breakdown, in addition to those obvious birth defects, you are referring to.

Like Diabetes, Deteriorations in Vision, Immune System Weakness, etc. Tall people often have shorter lives...

Sometimes a beneficial mutation even directly causes a problem in another system all together and has nothing to do with what would normally be considered a birth defect.

We could make a list if you wish.

Regardless, please provide the overwhelming evidence that can prove Macro Evolution is true.

 

[(Q)]

Claim 1
Overwhelming Evidence for Macro Evolution Exists.
Seems like this Claim really is being made by some people.

Who exactly is making "that" claim? You?

But an extraordinary claim like Macro Evolution, requires extraordinary evidence, to be Scientifically valid.
In spite of the known overwhelming odds against it, people seem to hold this as an article of faith anyway, perhaps without any way to prove or disprove it.
This makes no sense to me!

I expected no less or more. It makes no sense to you because you are ignorant of the subject matter. You wouldn't know evolution from a hole in the ground.

Even the building block theory of Micro Evolution ends in the eventual extinction of any species being modified, from it being genetically corrupted.
Micro Evolution results in dilution of the genetic code in each branch over time reducing the ability of every individual branch to survive over time.

You probably have no idea what that even means.

Even Common Sense tells us

Puh-lease. You? Common Sense? Lol.

that harmful mutations must vastly outnumber any rare beneficial mutations. And that Harmful mutations will eventually win the war and kill the species, simply by the numbers alone.

And that even a particular branch of a species that benefits from a rare beneficial mutation, would also be passing on even more harmful mutations than beneficial mutations to its offspring. Ensuring the eventual extinction even of that surviving branch of the species in the future. Again, all you need is basic math to know this.

This is intuitive and self evident to anyone.

No, it isn't, it's rubbish based on ignorance.

So there really better be some overwhelming jaw dropping evidence for Macro Evolution before anyone buys it. I am sure you would agree!
What then is the overwhelming evidence for Macro Evolution?

And, please don’t just say...
Because we are here!!!

Paul Nelson
September 18, 2020

“I spent literally thousands of study hours probing the logical and evidential structure of the theory of natural selection. I wanted to learn about the evidence for selection, but also to satisfy myself — in light of the evidence that selection needed, to explain macroevolution, but which did not exist — that the process, while perfectly real, could not accomplish what Darwin, or Dawkins, or my biology professors (some of them, anyway) thought it could.”

https://evolutionnews.org/2020/09/reform-it-altogether-more-on-the-naturalistic-parabola/

Poor thing, so many hours wasted on garbage. It's very sad to see what religion does to the human mind.

The author of the above article makes the following claim more or less...
Counter Claim 1
No evidence for Macro Evolution exists.
If he is wrong, please provide the overwhelming evidence that can prove Macro Evolution is true.

Ah, I see you have it mixed up again, it is you who must show why it is not true.

Oh, and...
Character Assassinations will not suffice!!!
(It is a genuine shame I even have to say that)

The references for the article point directly to Discovery Institute con men, so it's actually a genuine shame you would post such intellectual trash.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Who exactly is making "that" claim? You?



I expected no less or more. It makes no sense to you because you are ignorant of the subject matter. You wouldn't know evolution from a hole in the ground.



You probably have no idea what that even means.



Puh-lease. You? Common Sense? Lol.



No, it isn't, it's rubbish based on ignorance.



Poor thing, so many hours wasted on garbage. It's very sad to see what religion does to the human mind.



Ah, I see you have it mixed up again, it is you who must show why it is not true.



The references for the article point directly to Discovery Institute con men, so it's actually a genuine shame you would post such intellectual trash.

I have personally seen the term “overwhelming” used over and over again to describe the evidence for Macro Evolution.

So, why not provide it?

Please go ahead and provide the overwhelming evidence that can prove Macro Evolution is true.

Or, am I asking for something that does not exist?

Your apparently emotional based response points to the likelihood that my request for information threatens only a faith position you hold.

Character Assassinations also indicate things like fear, anger, and weakness. And I know you are capable of much better than that kind of response.

It would be far better if you would just overwhelm me with all of the vast evidence you have.

I would prefer and I encourage you to use that approach instead.

OK?

 

[DaveC426913]

Please go ahead and provide the overwhelming evidence that can prove Macro Evolution is true.

By 'overwhelming evidence', one means that, literally, there is too much information to be presented in anything less than a course in evolution.

You have not done your homework. I suspect you have never even set foot in a museum of natural history. True?


We have a fossil record dating back 3 billion years, with more species than can be counted, including intermediary species.
We have DNA and genome records that show, for example, that all primates descended from a common proto-primate ancestor.
Not only do we we see that that they speciated, but we can be pretty confident, based on genetic drift, in how long ago each line speciated.
We can do the same thing for mammals, and back to vertebrates, etc, showing how we are related to fish or back even further.

It would be far better if you would just overwhelm me with all of the vast evidence you have.

So you literally expect us to give you an education in biology and evolution. You think the onus is on others to educate you.

The only way it is possible to not accept evolution is through the wilful ignorance of a 21st century education on biology. You don't have an opinion any more valid than my opinion on Mongolian Stir-frying - of which I know nothing.

 

[foghorn]

So you literally expect us to give you an education in biology and evolution. You think the onus is on others to educate you.

The only way it is possible to not accept evolution is through the wilful ignorance of a 21st century education on biology. You don't have an opinion any more valid than my opinion on Mongolian Stir-frying - of which I know nothing.

That won't stop this thread running for at least another five or ten pages.

 

[origin]

I have personally seen the term “overwhelming” used over and over again to describe the evidence for Macro Evolution.
So, why not provide it?

This article will give you a small slice of the evidence.
Evidence

The reason people say that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution, is because there is.

 

[(Q)]

I have personally seen the term “overwhelming” used over and over again to describe the evidence for Macro Evolution.

I've seen "overwhelming" evidence of ignorance, deceit and lying in the construction of your threads.

So, why not provide it?

Please go ahead and provide the overwhelming evidence that can prove Macro Evolution is true.

Or, am I asking for something that does not exist?

You're asking something that you wouldn't understand if you saw it.

Your apparently emotional based response points to the likelihood that my request for information threatens only a faith position you hold.

Character Assassinations also indicate things like fear, anger, and weakness. And I know you are capable of much better than that kind of response.

I have yet to see you construct a thread not deserving of character assassinations considering all you ever do is insult our intelligence.

It would be far better if you would just overwhelm me with all of the vast evidence you have.

I would prefer and I encourage you to use that approach instead.

OK?

I encourage you to educate yourself rather than making a self-righteous ass out of yourself. OK?

 

[SetiAlpha6]

This article will give you a small slice of the evidence.
Evidence

The reason people say that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution, is because there is.

Thank You!

Naturalism is flat out assumed without proof in Science, and that has created an unwarranted and almost militant attitude in many of the faithful followers of it.

Be assured that the World has noticed the peer pressure and totalitarian tendencies that exist within the Scientific community currently.

Very much like how an unhealthy and dangerous religion functions.

There are other ways to interpret the same data outside of Naturalism that are also possible.

But even within Naturalistic Assumptions there may be other interpretations that are possible.

From the link you provided...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent

“It is, however, possible that these similarities resulted because of the laws of physics and chemistry - rather than through universal common descent - and therefore resulted in convergent evolution.”

Theism, as you already know, interprets the same data as pointing to a Designer who directs all of it to be able to live and function on this planet.

So, under Theism, two of the controlling factors, among many others are, that they all have the same Designer, and that they all have to be able to live in the same environment on this planet.

Same Designer
Same Environment
Results in Common Design Similarities

What evidence directly disproves this?

 

[Janus58]

Even Common Sense tells us that harmful mutations must vastly outnumber any rare beneficial mutations. And that Harmful mutations will eventually win the war and kill the species, simply by the numbers alone.

And that even a particular branch of a species that benefits from a rare beneficial mutation, would also be passing on even more harmful mutations than beneficial mutations to its offspring. Ensuring the eventual extinction even of that surviving branch of the species in the future. Again, all you need is basic math to know this.

This would only be true if the mutation rate was high. As long as it is low, any generation would have so few mutated individuals, that "harmful" mutation will be weeded out without having a significant effect on maintaining a growing population. Meanwhile, the "beneficial"* mutation, are passed on and remain in the genetic pool

Why is it that so many people's "common sense" is the result of applying faulty logic to incomplete or incorrect information.

* In addition, there isn't always a sharp line between "beneficial" and "harmful" mutations. So for instance, a mutation towards thicker fur might be beneficial during a period when temps are going down over time, but "harmful" during a period when temps are trending upwards.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

This would only be true if the mutation rate was high. As long as it is low, any generation would have so few mutated individuals, that "harmful" mutation will be weeded out without having a significant effect on maintaining a growing population. Meanwhile, the "beneficial"* mutation, are passed on and remain in the genetic pool

Why is it that so many people's "common sense" is the result of applying faulty logic to incomplete or incorrect information.

* In addition, there isn't always a sharp line between "beneficial" and "harmful" mutations. So for instance, a mutation towards thicker fur might be beneficial during a period when temps are going down over time, but "harmful" during a period when temps are trending upwards.

Both Beneficial and Harmful mutations would be passed on to the next generation.

And your example of thicker fur being beneficial during one epoch of time and harmful during the next, illustrates the point I was suggesting earlier, actually pretty well.

During the epoch of colder environmental conditions the genetic code for shorter fur would have been completely wiped out of the species, because none of them would have survived.

Then when the environment again warmed up, hundreds or thousands of years later, the genetic code of that species would make it less likely to survive, because the genetic code for shorter fur would have been eradicated from the gene pool entirely. Again because none of them would have survived.

Ice Age? How many of them were there anyway?

Multiply this by every physical attribute a living creature has and you get overall, a reduction in adaptability and less survivability over great spans of time.

And still, Harmful mutations will always outnumber Beneficial ones. I see no way around this?

Why is this not correct?

 

[(Q)]

Thank You!

Naturalism is flat out assumed without proof in Science, and that has created an unwarranted and almost militant attitude in many of the faithful followers of it.

It's interesting how you fabricate lies out of thin air.

Be assured that the World has noticed the peer pressure and totalitarian tendencies that exist within the Scientific community currently.

You mean, your world; the religious right, bible thumping, morally bankrupt, science haters.

Very much like how an unhealthy and dangerous religion functions.

Your ample examples here are a testament to that.

There are other ways to interpret the same data outside of Naturalism that are also possible.

But even within Naturalistic Assumptions there may be other interpretations that are possible.

Seti pulls out his trusty King James version, climbs up on his soap box and waves it frantically about.

 

[DaveC426913]

Thank You!
Naturalism is flat out assumed without proof in Science, and that has created an unwarranted and almost militant attitude in many of the faithful followers of it.

It's interesting how you fabricate lies out of thin air.

Indeed. It doesn't even qualify as a lie, since its really just editorializing i.e. without content that can be falsified or confirmed. eg. Who, exactly, does this 'assuming'?

 

[DaveC426913]

This thread is poorly formed. The OP has an opinion that is not based on knowledge of the subject matter, claims it's false - and then puts the onus on others to prove his assertions wrong.

That's not how it works, SA66. The onus is on you to dismantle the existing evidence that supports the accepted theory and facts about of evolution.

And that means you'll have to first study up on it. Start a new thread when you have done so.

 

[Yazata]

Claim 1
Overwhelming Evidence for Macro Evolution Exists.

Seems like this Claim really is being made by some people.

Yes. I think that I would agree with it, I'm impressed by how evidence from biogeography, ecology, comparative anatomy, comparative physiology, cell biology, the fossil record and genomics all come together to tell the same story more or less. It's perhaps the best example of consilience that I know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

In spite of the known overwhelming odds against it, people seem to hold this as an article of faith anyway, perhaps without any way to prove or disprove it.

Proofs only exist in mathematics and logic. Not in real life. And they merely tell us that if our initial assumptions are true (and if we accept the rules of inference), then our conclusion must be T too. Not nearly as grandiose as the idea of "proof" is in everyday speech. It's entirely possible to prove falsehoods, provided merely that one of our initial assumptions is false.

The relation between evidence and conclusions is weaker than logical deduction. (And still poorly understood.) Evidence makes conclusions more likely somehow. I'm not sure how to characterize it, though attempts are being made as we speak to explain it probabilistically. I'm not sure if that attempt to reduce the evidence-conclusion relation to the logical inference relation will ultimately succeed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_epistemology

Even the building block theory of Micro Evolution ends in the eventual extinction of any species being modified, from it being genetically corrupted.

Micro Evolution results in dilution of the genetic code in each branch over time reducing the ability of every individual branch to survive over time.

Even Common Sense tells us that harmful mutations must vastly outnumber any rare beneficial mutations. And that Harmful mutations will eventually win the war and kill the species, simply by the numbers alone.

I'm inclined to (sort-of agree) if all we are talking about are point mutations in vital genes. But not all genes are vital in quite that way. There's quite a bit of slack in it and variations in an animal's genetic code are possible without obvious harmful effect. Things like Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms are basically why each of us is genetically distinct and aren't exact clones of each other. These SNPs are getting a lot of attention from medical scientists as we speak, since they are implicated in why some people have a genetic vulnerability to certain diseases, why other people are unusually resistant to particular diseases, and why pharmaceuticals may effect different people differently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-nucleotide_polymorphism

Variations like these are more common in some parts of the genome than others. Some parts are crucial to vital functions and hence are what the biologists call "highly conserved". These Conserved Sequences across widely divergent taxa themselves constitute another evidence of macroevolution. For example, virtually all multicellular animals from worms to man possess very similar homeobox genes that indirectly regulate developmental functions such as creating a head-tail gradient during fetal development (by influencing the expression or silencing of other genes). It's basically the same genes performing that fetal development control function in all animals. While many biologists had considered insect compound eyes and human eyes to be evolutionary separate examples of convergent evolution (two separate paths to very different kinds of eyes), it turns out that many of the same genes are generating eyes in insects and in man. Biologists found that fascinating. It's also evidence of evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conserved_sequence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeobox

Another thing that happens is gene duplication. Segments of DNA are sometimes duplicated during replication, such that the genome contains multiple copies of the genes that are on the duplicated segment. This is surprisingly common. If a gene is duplicated, it might lead to increased activity in whatever the gene was involved in doing, which might have harmful or beneficial evolutionary effects. Or alternatively, the gene duplicates might simply be redundant where the duplicate copies have no effect. In that latter case they would be freed to mutate without interfering with whatever the gene's original function was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication

 

[billvon]

Even Common Sense tells us that harmful mutations must vastly outnumber any rare beneficial mutations.

Definitely!

And that Harmful mutations will eventually win the war and kill the species, simply by the numbers alone.

Nonsense. Harmful mutations kill or cripple the individual, and thus that harmful mutation is not propagated.

And that even a particular branch of a species that benefits from a rare beneficial mutation, would also be passing on even more harmful mutations than beneficial mutations to its offspring.

Nope. Harmful mutations kill or cripple the individual, and thus that harmful mutation is not propagated.

So there really better be some overwhelming jaw dropping evidence for Macro Evolution before anyone buys it. I am sure you would agree! What then is the overwhelming evidence for Macro Evolution?

Here's some excellent evidence:
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

All backed up with decades of work in paleontology, genetics, molecular biology and comparative anatomy.

If he is wrong, please provide the overwhelming evidence that can prove Macro Evolution is true.

Here's a second trove of evidence:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/...ssil,fossils coexisting with dinosaur remains.

 

[origin]

Thank You!

You're welcome. So as you can see there is overwhelming evidence. Not to mention that the evidence presented is only a tiny bit of the evidence. Google 'evidence for evolution' and be amazed at the shear weight of the evidence! Good luck on your search.

 

[origin]

Very much like how an unhealthy and dangerous religion functions.

I've got ask, is an 'unhealthy and dangerous religion' any other religion than yours. If not could you list a few healthy and safe religions?

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Here are a few things that we unfortunately know to be true in the field of Human Anthropology Research.

1. Frauds are Historically Commonplace.
2. Peer Pressure is Commonplace and is Extreme.
3. Both Fame and Fortune are Core Motivations.
4. Interpretations of Data are Carefully Controlled and Manipulated.
5. Interpretations are Forced to fit inside Previous Assumptions that were also Previously Forced to fit inside the Previous Assumptions before them.
6. The interpretations of All Data must be Manipulated to never Counter Neo-Darwinism or Naturalism.
7. All Opposition to Neo-Darwinism and Naturalism must be Ridiculed and Silenced.
8. It is a kind of Anti-Science within Science itself.

This is exactly how a Dangerous Religion within Theism as a Whole operates!

Congratulations!!!
It has become the very Same Beast you all hate so much!!!