Jump to content


Photo

Is Evolution A Proven Fact?


  • Please log in to reply
750 replies to this topic

#741 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,615 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 February 2017 - 08:49 AM

 

 

What If: science hasn't demonstrated ID.
science hasn't even identified an intelligence, much less located it.
the only intelligence i'm aware of is that which resides in animals.
OTOH, there seems to be an intelligence operating within the cell.
i cannot say there is, or isn't, an unknown "force", because i simply do not know.

 

Scientifically and logically we can directly evaluate and detect intelligent design by definition, and by experiment I can show that my test would not fail ever, even once. To understand more, read message one in this thread;

 

http://evolutionfair...ething-like-id/

 

(Here is my challenge - put any object in front of me, number them all, and I will tell you which ones are intelligently designed. Of course I may need a lab analysis for some objects, for example, something that looks like a rock but is a very realistic prop, so that I can ascertain if artificial materials have been used.)

 

This as an experiment, as described in message one, is FARCICAL of course. Why? Because we already know all of the things my experiment would tell us. We already know that a test could be made to find out that which is intelligently designed, and that we could easily discern that which is from that which isn't, because by definition, intelligent design has certain features.

 

It's called the law of identity. The same experiment could be done on a human, a human by definition, has human anatomy, DNA, blood, human sentience, skin, etc..so to say, "mike is not human" is absurd, because by identity I am. In the same way certain objects have the defining features of design.

 

The part you are correct about, is that any intelligent design argument shouldn't be conflated with the separate argument, as to Who/what that designer is. So I agree we can't detect the intelligent designer, but the intelligent designs the designer makes, are detectable and factual.



#742 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 25 February 2017 - 10:17 PM

i also believe that transposons played a vital part by mimicking the behavior of HGT.

i proposed earlier that epigenetics effected a kind of "restart".
this "restart" could explain how cells become differentiated.

it's really crazy how i came up with an "epigenetic restart" scenario.
i was running things through my mind and it just sort of fell out.

well, take a gander at this:
Resetting of the epigenome in human primordial germ cells (hPGCs) is critical for development.
- www.cell.com/abstract/S0092-8674(15)00564-4.

i bet my hypothesis about transposons mimicking HGT is also true.

#743 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 816 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 27 February 2017 - 09:01 AM

you need to take this stuff up with koonin.
i posted what he said, and i'm positive he knows exactly what he is talking about.
he specifically states animal phyla arrived on the scene fully formed with no intermediates to the last nexus (which i assume to be eukaryotic super groups).
from koonin:
I propose that most or all major evolutionary transitions that show the "explosive" pattern of emergence of new types of biological entities correspond to a boundary between two qualitatively distinct evolutionary phases. The first, inflationary phase is characterized by extremely rapid evolution driven by various processes of genetic information exchange, such as horizontal gene transfer, recombination, fusion, fission, and spread of mobile elements. These processes give rise to a vast diversity of forms from which the main classes of entities at the new level of complexity emerge independently, through a sampling process.
- The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution.htm
the above can hardly be seen as anything even approaching gradual.

 

You posted a quote from Koonin, but you also added in your own commentary and it is that commentary that I object to. Koonin was clearly talking about the Cambrian explosion and before, and you said there has "hardly been any change since", and said that you need a new phylum in order for it to be considered evolution otherwise the changes are too small.

 

If you think going from a fish to a human is "hardly any change", and that such changes are too small for it to be evolution then I don't know what to tell you.

 

do you think research is driven by "who has the money"?
if someone is unwilling to fund the research, then this research will most likely not take place.
pharma has a huge pile of cash at its disposal.
so, it seems that if we can control the cash flow, we can essentially control what gets published.
this is probably one of the largest problems with professional science.

 

I largely agree.

 

why am i obsessed?
because professional science has not rescinded it, that's why.
there are only 2 conclusions we can draw from this:
1. the quote is accurate.
or
2. someone is lying.

i seriously doubt that science (the journal) gained its respect by lying.
futhermore, it seems very unlikely that science would risk its reputation over the dignity of one scientist.

also, why would ayala consider the modern synthesis as dead if his research supposedly supported it?
Suzan Mazur: In recent years the modern synthesis has been declared extended by major evolutionary thinkers (e.g., “the Altenberg 16“ and others), as well as dead by major evolutionary thinkers, the late Lynn Margulis and Francisco Ayala among them. Ditto for the public discourse on the Internet. My understanding is that you are now calling for the modern synthesis to be replaced.
- www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/replace-the-modern-sythes_b_5284211.html

the above was from an interview between mazur and noble.

as of right now, no one has produced anything from the journal science that says, hey guys, we got this wrong.

i've seen webpages of the article with the alleged retraction illegally inserted along with a "copyright" notice that says it came from science.
i saved that page, and here are a few excerpts:
"Science" 21 November 1980, vol. 210, s. 883-887; http://www.theistic-....com/lewin.htmlThis article reports the 1980 Conference on Macroevolution held in Chicago.
. . .
In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States, said: "We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate." [Note: Dr. Ayala denies that he said this. Please see the letter reproduced below from Richard Arrowsmith and Dr. Ayala.]

the above disclaimer about ayala appears NOWHERE in the pages of science.

yes goku, something is very wrong here.

 

How do you know science never rescinded the quote? If all you have is the original 1980 pdf then obviously that wouldn't have any corrections. How do you know that the correction is "illegally inserted"?

 

As I keep telling you context matters. You have to understand what is meant by "modern synthesis" in the context it was being used in. The modern synthesis of the 1970's is different from the modern synthesis of the 2010's, at least in how it is being used by active scientists. In 1980 Ayala was wrestling with the ideas of PE, and since then the ideas of PE have been absorbed into the modern synthesis.

 

I asked this multiple times before, but you just kept repeating 'read my sources', what do you mean by "gradualism"?

 

Even if the quote from Ayala is genuine, it is of no consequence. What, exactly, do you think this quote demonstrates?



#744 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 27 February 2017 - 11:34 AM

You posted a quote from Koonin, but you also added in your own commentary and it is that commentary that I object to. Koonin was clearly talking about the Cambrian explosion and before, and you said there has "hardly been any change since", and said that you need a new phylum in order for it to be considered evolution otherwise the changes are too small.
 
If you think going from a fish to a human is "hardly any change", and that such changes are too small for it to be evolution then I don't know what to tell you.
 
 
I largely agree.
 
 
How do you know science never rescinded the quote? If all you have is the original 1980 pdf then obviously that wouldn't have any corrections. How do you know that the correction is "illegally inserted"?
 
As I keep telling you context matters. You have to understand what is meant by "modern synthesis" in the context it was being used in. The modern synthesis of the 1970's is different from the modern synthesis of the 2010's, at least in how it is being used by active scientists. In 1980 Ayala was wrestling with the ideas of PE, and since then the ideas of PE have been absorbed into the modern synthesis.
 
I asked this multiple times before, but you just kept repeating 'read my sources', what do you mean by "gradualism"?
 
Even if the quote from Ayala is genuine, it is of no consequence. What, exactly, do you think this quote demonstrates?

this is essentially the same as your last post, and i've responded to it.

#745 eddified

eddified

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Mormon
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Utah

Posted 27 February 2017 - 05:35 PM

Wow guys, I'm surprised this has gone on for 38 pages. Is there a point to continuing?



#746 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 27 February 2017 - 06:12 PM

Wow guys, I'm surprised this has gone on for 38 pages. Is there a point to continuing?

do you feel that the question of the thread has been answered?

do you believe we should teach our children the "tree of life" concept when the arrival of animal phyla does not fit that concept?

do you believe we should teach (or imply) to our children we all cam from a single living cell when no such thing has been proven?

do you believe we should teach our children the "small gradual accumulation" concept, when that concept isn't the only alternative, and furthermore it's been proven that epigenetics plays a major role in changes, which employs no gradual change?

as your second post in this thread, why don't you enlighten us as to why you feel this thread has run its course.
see, goku doesn't want to address my other points, such as post 740, because it completely destroys his comment of "no biologist would agree that small changes do not accumulate".

if you have anything to offer along these lines, then by all means put on your skivvies and jump in.

#747 eddified

eddified

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Mormon
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Utah

Posted 27 February 2017 - 06:32 PM

Hi WhatIf, thanks for the invitation to jump in. I'm a horrible debater. I'm a smart person, and can review the evidence and come to my own conclusions, but that doesn't mean I'm good at debating or conveying ideas on the topic through written words.

 

> do you feel that the question of the thread has been answered?
Yes, in the negative

> do you believe we should teach our children the "tree of life" concept when the arrival of animal phyla does not fit that concept?

I do not believe we should teach the tree of life concept.

> do you believe we should teach (or imply) to our children we all cam from a single living cell when no such thing has been proven?

Absolutely not. We should not teach the fairy tale of evolutionary theory in schools, except to explain how UNscientific it is.

> do you believe we should teach our children the "small gradual accumulation" concept, when that concept isn't the only alternative, and furthermore it's been proven that epigenetics plays a major role in changes, which employs no gradual change?

Unsure about these things. I'm not going to make a strong assertion that there isn't more to be learned in this thread -- I'm mainly just surprised how long it is, and I'm questioning as to whether it's helpful or not to go on--it seems to me that some things were repeated over and over again, so in that respect it seems to have become less helpful. 

 

Oh, and one more thing: what are "skivvies"?  :gigglesmile: 



#748 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 27 February 2017 - 06:38 PM

Oh, and one more thing: what are "skivvies"?  :gigglesmile: 

boxer shorts.

#749 eddified

eddified

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Mormon
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Utah

Posted 27 February 2017 - 11:11 PM

@"what if" -- If you are still on the fence about evolution, I encourage you to check out www.scienceagainstevolution.info . It's low-budget, yes, but it includes some great logic and scientific evidence against evolution. It does not use theistic arguments. It only uses logic and scientific arguments to show that evolution is a farce.



#750 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 28 February 2017 - 12:25 AM

@"what if" -- If you are still on the fence about evolution, I encourage you to check out www.scienceagainstevolution.info . It's low-budget, yes, but it includes some great logic and scientific evidence against evolution. It does not use theistic arguments. It only uses logic and scientific arguments to show that evolution is a farce.

i'm not not quite prepared to say evolution is a farce, but i can say with certainty that none of it has actually been demonstrated, excepting speciation.

macro evolution is nothing more than a gradual accumulation of wishful thinking.

the problem of abiogenesis is so complex, that it may never be solved.
as a matter of fact, science has no clue as to how life got here.
some scientists use the word mystery, while others use the word miracle.

the powers that be has withheld vital information from the masses to perpetrate their dogma of "gradually accumulating changes" for over 70 years.

i'll give your link a once over

#751 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 28 February 2017 - 01:08 AM

@"what if" -- If you are still on the fence about evolution, I encourage you to check out www.scienceagainstevolution.info .

okay, i don't mean any disrespect, but i feel like this material will be useless in my arguments with evolutionists.
i prefer respected sites.
even then i encounter "disbelief", and get accused of misinterpreting what is being said.

furthermore, it isn't my intention to "disprove" evolution.
why?
because it's an all too familiar tactic of evolutionists to come off with the "misrepresentation" bit when you go that route.

start at page 1 of this thread and read my sources and arguments.
copy/pasting the source into your search engine should give you the source.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users