Jump to content


Photo

Do Scientists Doubt Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#21 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 13 July 2017 - 03:08 AM

Is it now acceptable to cite wooky-pee-dee-uh?

#22 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 13 July 2017 - 06:22 AM

 

 

all evolution is within a specific body plan.

in effect there is no macroevolution.
species aren't the durable units of evolution, body plans are.

this is almost certain proof that epigenetics, transposons, and regulatory networks were operational at the time of eukaryote super groups.

also keep in mind that koonin does not doubt evolution.
(disclaimer because of the thread title.)

 

I'm curious, since I'm unfamiliar with the term body plan:

Do a kolibri and a blue whale have the same body plan?

 

 

DON"T YOU HAVE ACCESS TO WICKED PEDIA FILES ?

I'm asking a question because in the past sometimes definitions have been unclear. If What If could answer that would be great.



#23 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,001 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 13 July 2017 - 07:38 AM

You're not very good at giving straight answers are you.

sometimes not, i tend to get confused at times.

I asked whether you consider there is evidence in the fossil record of macroevolution after the first phyla appeared, not before.

koonin says phyla arrived here ready made. (later changed to abruptly because a reviewer got excited over the term ready made).
koonin doesn't mention any specific phyla or a group of phyla.
as a matter of fact he specifically says:
The Cambrian explosion in animal evolution during which all the diverse body plans appear to have emerged almost in a geological instant is a highly publicized enigma.
- The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution.htm

the above paper was published 2007

so, as of 2007 there are no transitionals between animal phyla.

furthermore, koonin rejects the mainstream explanation thusly:
Although molecular clock analysis has been invoked to propose that the Cambrian explosion is an artifact of the fossil record whereas the actual divergence occurred much earlier [36,37], the reliability of these estimates appears to be questionable [38]. In an already familiar pattern, the relationship between the animal phyla remains controversial and elusive.
- ibid.

 
I agree, you do seem very confused. Why do you keep going on about the appearance of phyla in the Cambrian when I'm asking about evolution since ? You do realise that all the animals that ever existed in each phyla did not all appear in the Cambrian yeah ? How many Cambrian examples of Chordata can you give me ?

there is no evidence that the "body plan" boundary has been crossed
all evolution is within a specific body plan.
in effect there is no macroevolution.
species aren't the durable units of evolution, body plans are.

this is almost certain proof that epigenetics, transposons, and regulatory networks were operational at the time of eukaryote super groups.

also keep in mind that koonin does not doubt evolution.
(disclaimer because of the thread title.)

I'm curious, since I'm unfamiliar with the term body plan:
Do a kolibri and a blue whale have the same body plan?

if they belong to the same phyla.
koonin uses the terms body plans and phyla interchangeably.

#24 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 13 July 2017 - 02:57 PM

I wish you guys could have a real conversation for once, no wonder I end up only re-reading my own posts. 

 

What happened to interesting explanations on this forum? I do wish all posters would add some flesh to their posts.



#25 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 13 July 2017 - 03:03 PM

 

 

 

You're not very good at giving straight answers are you.

sometimes not, i tend to get confused at times.

I asked whether you consider there is evidence in the fossil record of macroevolution after the first phyla appeared, not before.

koonin says phyla arrived here ready made. (later changed to abruptly because a reviewer got excited over the term ready made).
koonin doesn't mention any specific phyla or a group of phyla.
as a matter of fact he specifically says:
The Cambrian explosion in animal evolution during which all the diverse body plans appear to have emerged almost in a geological instant is a highly publicized enigma.
- The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution.htm

the above paper was published 2007

so, as of 2007 there are no transitionals between animal phyla.

furthermore, koonin rejects the mainstream explanation thusly:
Although molecular clock analysis has been invoked to propose that the Cambrian explosion is an artifact of the fossil record whereas the actual divergence occurred much earlier [36,37], the reliability of these estimates appears to be questionable [38]. In an already familiar pattern, the relationship between the animal phyla remains controversial and elusive.
- ibid.

 

 
I agree, you do seem very confused. Why do you keep going on about the appearance of phyla in the Cambrian when I'm asking about evolution since ? You do realise that all the animals that ever existed in each phyla did not all appear in the Cambrian yeah ? How many Cambrian examples of Chordata can you give me ?

 

there is no evidence that the "body plan" boundary has been crossed
all evolution is within a specific body plan.
in effect there is no macroevolution.
species aren't the durable units of evolution, body plans are.

this is almost certain proof that epigenetics, transposons, and regulatory networks were operational at the time of eukaryote super groups.

also keep in mind that koonin does not doubt evolution.
(disclaimer because of the thread title.)

 

 

This is becoming farcical. Why do you keep repeating the same thing in a different way instead of answering the question ? Reptiles, birds, humans etc. all belong to the phylum Chordata. Is that not the result of macroevolution since the Cambrian to you ?



#26 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 13 July 2017 - 11:41 PM

 

there is no evidence that the "body plan" boundary has been crossed

all evolution is within a specific body plan.
in effect there is no macroevolution.
species aren't the durable units of evolution, body plans are.

this is almost certain proof that epigenetics, transposons, and regulatory networks were operational at the time of eukaryote super groups.

also keep in mind that koonin does not doubt evolution.
(disclaimer because of the thread title.)

 

 

This is becoming farcical. Why do you keep repeating the same thing in a different way instead of answering the question ? Reptiles, birds, humans etc. all belong to the phylum Chordata. Is that not the result of macroevolution since the Cambrian to you ?

 

Speciation to reptiles, birds, humans, ... are all micro evolution events according to what if. Not Macro evolution.

Its a question of word usage.



#27 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 14 July 2017 - 12:59 AM

Speciation to reptiles, birds, humans, ... are all micro evolution events according to what if. Not Macro evolution.
Its a question of word usage.


Is that what you think What if ? No need to use the word phyla again, or name check Koonin, as this is a question about organisms within a single phylum.



#28 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,001 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 14 July 2017 - 06:45 AM

Is that what you think What if ?


yes.
 

No need to use the word phyla again, or name check Koonin, as this is a question about organisms within a single phylum.


i'll check koonin and use the word phyla as many times as is necessary.

i think what you need to be concerned about is the higher classifications of animals.
how can phyla arrive here from eukaryote super groups without leaving a trace of its history.
koonin doesn't even mention these higher classifications.

from koonin:
Despite many ingenious attempts to decipher the branching order near the root of the phylogenetic tree of eukaryotes, there has been little progress, and an objective depiction of the state of affairs seems to be a "star" phylogeny, with the 5 or 6 supergroups established with reasonable confidence but the relationship between them remaining unresolved.

The Cambrian explosion in animal evolution during which all the diverse body plans appear to have emerged almost in a geological instant is a highly publicized enigma. Although molecular clock analysis has been invoked to propose that the Cambrian explosion is an artifact of the fossil record whereas the actual divergence occurred much earlier, the reliability of these estimates appears to be questionable. In an already familiar pattern, the relationship between the animal phyla remains controversial and elusive.
- The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution.htm

where are the higher classifications of animals?

#29 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 14 July 2017 - 09:55 AM

 

 

Koonin: The Cambrian explosion in animal evolution during which all the diverse body plans appear to have emerged almost in a geological instant is a highly publicized enigma.

 

Not really, because there was no explosion, and the reason there is no relationship between them and never was, is because animals didn't evolve from pondscum, they were created by Almighty God, and clearly intelligently designed, having all of the features of miraculous design.

 

The problem they can't solve is that they have it all wrong because the rock record isn't a history of life on earth, it represents a portion of dead things buried while eating, digesting, fighting, giving birth, in the suffocation position, etc....nor is this record a history of stages of life on earth, which is why nobody can fill the gaps because they can't be filled because they never were filled except with imagined things. To say that record is a history of evolution is basically LYING in my view.


  • Mike Summers likes this

#30 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,001 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 14 July 2017 - 10:51 AM

Koonin: The Cambrian explosion in animal evolution during which all the diverse body plans appear to have emerged almost in a geological instant is a highly publicized enigma.

 
Not really, because there was no explosion, and the reason there is no relationship between them and never was, is because animals didn't evolve from pondscum, they were created by Almighty God, and clearly intelligently designed, having all of the features of miraculous design.
 
The problem they can't solve is that they have it all wrong because the rock record isn't a history of life on earth, it represents a portion of dead things buried while eating, digesting, fighting, giving birth, in the suffocation position, etc....nor is this record a history of stages of life on earth, which is why nobody can fill the gaps because they can't be filled because they never were filled except with imagined things. To say that record is a history of evolution is basically LYING in my view.

abiogenesis does indeed appear unsolvable.

the slow accretion of genetic material was hard enough.
now it appears we have epigenetics, regulatory networks, and transposons to deal with.

it also appears that this came after the nucleation of eukaryotes, especially transposons.

the above is essentially as unexplainable as abiogenesis.

BTW, lying, or parroting the status quo does no one any good.

the first thing that needs to go is the idea of genomes slowly adding genetic material to itself.
yes, it happens, but the effects are largely miniscule.
although i can understand an HGT of an entire genome can have drastic effects.

i wonder if this is what triggered the arrival of phyla.
makes sense in the light of what is known about organic catalysts.

#31 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,001 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 22 July 2017 - 09:30 AM

i guess the "evolutionists" don't quite know what to make of post 28.

TBH, i don't either.

#32 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 866 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 25 July 2017 - 07:49 PM

Is that what you think What if ?

yes. 

No need to use the word phyla again, or name check Koonin, as this is a question about organisms within a single phylum.

i'll check koonin and use the word phyla as many times as is necessary.i think what you need to be concerned about is the higher classifications of animals.how can phyla arrive here from eukaryote super groups without leaving a trace of its history.koonin doesn't even mention these higher classifications.from koonin:Despite many ingenious attempts to decipher the branching order near the root of the phylogenetic tree of eukaryotes, there has been little progress, and an objective depiction of the state of affairs seems to be a "star" phylogeny, with the 5 or 6 supergroups established with reasonable confidence but the relationship between them remaining unresolved.The Cambrian explosion in animal evolution during which all the diverse body plans appear to have emerged almost in a geological instant is a highly publicized enigma. Although molecular clock analysis has been invoked to propose that the Cambrian explosion is an artifact of the fossil record whereas the actual divergence occurred much earlier, the reliability of these estimates appears to be questionable. In an already familiar pattern, the relationship between the animal phyla remains controversial and elusive.- The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution.htmwhere are the higher classifications of animals?


One suggestion.. Since nobody has a clue as to who or what a koonin is, It might be more productive and less confusing to simply say "The Oracle" instead of "koonin" .. People will be much less likely to question you that way.

#33 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 05 August 2017 - 01:31 AM

 

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]Of course this topic hasn't yet discussed WHY these majority of science people accept evolution.

the answer is simple, it's the only real rational option.
i must immediately qualify that though.
science simply doesn't know how life got here, it is simply clueless as to how it came about.
the same can be said of animal phyla.
the really curious thing is, these are the exact areas that god claims is his doing.
can anyone really ascribe that to coincidence?

That's wrong on so many levels. 

 

It's for sure not the only rational option. In fact it isn't rational at all, if you think it through and have to harmonize it with characteristics of reality. 



#34 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 06 August 2017 - 10:06 PM

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]Of course this topic hasn't yet discussed WHY these majority of science people accept evolution.

the answer is simple, it's the only real rational option.
i must immediately qualify that though.
science simply doesn't know how life got here, it is simply clueless as to how it came about.
the same can be said of animal phyla.
the really curious thing is, these are the exact areas that god claims is his doing.
can anyone really ascribe that to coincidence?

That's wrong on so many levels. 
...

.
A simple beginning might be this correction to the penultimate pseudo-sentence: "...these are the ... areas that [humans] claim God has done."

#35 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,499 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 07 August 2017 - 05:48 AM


science simply doesn't know how life got here, it is simply clueless as to how it came about.

Science is not an entity. It is simply another name for our reasoning process!

the same can be said of animal phyla.
the really curious thing is, these are the exact areas that god claims is his doing.
can anyone really ascribe that to coincidence?

That's wrong on so many levels. 

Says who? The all knowing you? Get real!
You weren't there when life cam on the scene! You are speculating and so do not have the knowledge to rule out anything!
Asit is we have law of uto-biogenesis which saya life only comes from life (that's what we have observed.

#36 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 07 August 2017 - 08:34 AM

science simply doesn't know how life got here, it is simply clueless as to how it came about.


Science is not an entity. It is simply another name for our reasoning process!

the same can be said of animal phyla.
the really curious thing is, these are the exact areas that god claims is his doing.
can anyone really ascribe that to coincidence?

That's wrong on so many levels.


Says who? The all knowing you? Get real!
You weren't there when life cam on the scene! You are speculating and so do not have the knowledge to rule out anything!
Asit is we have law of uto-biogenesis which saya life only comes from life (that's what we have observed.

.
On what basis would one who believes in an all-powerful creator also believe what you wrote? Let me be clear: "What God wants, God gets; God help us all." (R. Waters, Amused to Death) Can anyone, does anyone DARE dispute this quotation? (Translation for those in denial: "life only comes from life" is a preposterous statement if the all-powerful creator conception is true.)

What is highly amusing to me--in full embarrassment to the believer--is an Agnostic has to set the record straight.

#37 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,499 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 07 August 2017 - 04:34 PM

Schera do,
Mike Summers, on 07 Aug 2017 - 07:48 AM, said:


 

science simply doesn't know how life got here, it is simply clueless as to how it came about.

Science is not an entity. It is simply another name for our reasoning process! (edit) It can formulate no judgements or opinions!

the same can be said of animal phyla.
the really curious thing is, these are the exact areas that god claims is his doing.
can anyone really ascribe that to coincidence?

That's wrong on so many levels.

Mike: Says who? The all knowing you? Get real! You weren't there when life cam on the scene! You are speculating and do not have the knowledge to rule out anything!
As it is we have the law of auto-biogenesis which says life only comes from life (that's what we have observed).

Schera do: On what basis would one who believes in an all-powerful creator also believe what you wrote? Let me be clear: "What God wants, God gets; God help us all." (R. Waters, Amused to Death) Can anyone, does anyone DARE dispute this quotation? (Translation for those in denial: "life only comes from life" is a preposterous statement if the all-powerful creator conception is true.)

Why is it preposterous that life only comes from life? I have never heard of any claims made by anyone that has observed life come from the non-living? Have you?

What is highly amusing to me--in full embarrassment to the beli[/qupte]ever--is an Agnostic has to set the record straight.

And how have you set the recoord straight-- by your god like decrees? "So let it be written! So let it be done!" Lol
 



#38 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 08 August 2017 - 06:37 AM

Schera do,
Mike Summers, on 07 Aug 2017 - 07:48 AM, said:



science simply doesn't know how life got here, it is simply clueless as to how it came about.

Science is not an entity. It is simply another name for our reasoning process! (edit) It can formulate no judgements or opinions!

the same can be said of animal phyla.
the really curious thing is, these are the exact areas that god claims is his doing.
can anyone really ascribe that to coincidence?

That's wrong on so many levels.

Mike: Says who? The all knowing you? Get real! You weren't there when life cam on the scene! You are speculating and do not have the knowledge to rule out anything!
As it is we have the law of auto-biogenesis which says life only comes from life (that's what we have observed).

Schera do: On what basis would one who believes in an all-powerful creator also believe what you wrote? Let me be clear: "What God wants, God gets; God help us all." (R. Waters, Amused to Death) Can anyone, does anyone DARE dispute this quotation? (Translation for those in denial: "life only comes from life" is a preposterous statement if the all-powerful creator conception is true.)

Why is it preposterous that life only comes from life? I have never heard of any claims made by anyone that has observed life come from the non-living? Have you?

.
I don't believe that you don't understand. This means I won't be answering those questions.

#39 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,001 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 09 August 2017 - 03:40 AM

the same can be said of animal phyla.
the really curious thing is, these are the exact areas that god claims is his doing.
can anyone really ascribe that to coincidence?

That's wrong on so many levels.



first of all, i never claimed to be all knowing.
second, god does indeed claim that he created life and the animals.
third, i request the data on abiogenesis and how animal phyla came about.
fourth, "that's so wrong on so many levels" wasn't a part of my quote.

#40 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,499 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 10 August 2017 - 02:52 PM

What if said:

first of all, i never claimed to be all knowing.
second, god does indeed claim that he created life and the animals.
third, i request the data on abiogenesis and how animal phyla came about.
fourth, "that's so wrong on so many levels" wasn't a part of my quote.

Sorry. Who said it then?

You can read the Bible from cover to cover and it never says God created life!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users