Jump to content


Photo

Natural Selection-thread Closed


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
62 replies to this topic

#41 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 29 July 2005 - 01:08 PM

Why is it that Calipithecus, chance or Ari have yet to provide any evidence that natural selection, especially acting on random mutations, can do what evolutionists claim it did & can? That is accounting for the range of morphological & phenotypic change required if all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms? Surely there must be hundreds if not thousands of such scenarios. But alas there isn't even one.

All we get is assertion after assertion using variations and then falsely extrapolating from those variations that greater, non-observable, non-testable and non-verifiable transformations can take place.

Instead of proposing "thought experiments" or "hypothetical questions", why don't they present the scientific data that supports their claims? And you would be correct if you inferred the reason they don't do so is because such evidence does not exist and the ToE is built on the assumption, with a heavy anti-ID bias, and relies more on faith than actual research.

#42 Guest_Aristarchus_*

Guest_Aristarchus_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 July 2005 - 06:27 AM

Instead of proposing "thought experiments" or "hypothetical questions", why don't they present the scientific data that supports their claims? And you would be correct if you inferred the reason they don't do so is because such evidence does not exist and the ToE is built on the assumption, with a heavy anti-ID bias, and relies more on faith than actual research.

View Post


I assume you realize that from our point of view, we have presented you with many lines of hard evidence (fossil records, radiometric dating aligned with genetic differences, changes in current species etc), but in each case, you have decided such data are irrelevant and unacceptable. So this leads me to wonder whether you have already decided that no form of evidence could possibly exist to sway you. You have simply made up your mind, and all evidence is irrelevant.

I hope that is not true. If not, could you tell me what sort of evidence you would need? You say you understand the claims of evolutionary biologists, and they differ from your theory. What sort of evidence would you need to see to distinguish the two theories? If you can not think of a single line of evidence that could possible sway you, then we can only conclude that 'evidence' is not the issue here.

#43 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 31 July 2005 - 08:08 AM

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 29 2005, 04:08 PM)
Instead of proposing "thought experiments" or "hypothetical questions", why don't they present the scientific data that supports their claims? And you would be correct if you inferred the reason they don't do so is because such evidence does not exist and the ToE is built on the assumption, with a heavy anti-ID bias, and relies more on faith than actual research.

Aristarchus
I assume you realize that from our point of view, we have presented you with many lines of hard evidence (fossil records, radiometric dating aligned with genetic differences, changes in current species etc), but in each case, you have decided such data are irrelevant and unacceptable. So this leads me to wonder whether you have already decided that no form of evidence could possibly exist to sway you. You have simply made up your mind, and all evidence is irrelevant.


One more time- The fossil record tells us nothing about a mechanism- nada. That means it can be used as evidence for a variety of hypotheses- ID, Creation, Theistic evolution, or the current ToE. Radiometric dating- Has never been calibrated. We do not yet know what makes an atom unstable and all we do know is that some time during its life it starts to decay. Genetic differences do not explain the morphological differences. Changes in current species does not explain the origins of species.

IOW all the allged "evidence" you have presented will only point to the current ToE IF and ONLY if you have already made up your mind that the ToE is indicative of reality.

Aristarchus:
I hope that is not true. If not, could you tell me what sort of evidence you would need? You say you understand the claims of evolutionary biologists, and they differ from your theory. What sort of evidence would you need to see to distinguish the two theories? If you can not think of a single line of evidence that could possible sway you, then we can only conclude that 'evidence' is not the issue here.


I have made it clear what evidence I will accept. Something that shows such transformations are possible would be nice. As it stands now we don't even know what makes a species what it is. Therefore it is very premature to say that some mutation-selection process can change it completely, even over eons of time.

Why is it that you are a "theistic evolutionist"? Obviously you find the atheistic version un-palatable...

Bottom line is I was an evolutionists. Then I realized, via research, that it is nothing more than a faith-based program.

#44 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 31 July 2005 - 02:03 PM

I don't do hypothetical questions and you have failed to support anything you post. Not one shred of evidence. All you appear to be capable of doping is to say "No it's not" or "yes it is".


Pity, hypothetical questioning is an interesting and valid way to rationalise ideas to see if they can withstand criticism. John - now, please, it is you, not I, that fails to provide detailed explanation of a POV when asked.

The bottom line here people is that IF evolutionists could substantiate their claims there wouldn't be any debate on the topic. There wouldn't be an ID. There would be theistic evolution and there wouldn't be any Creation model. I would surely still be an evolutionist.


The bottom line is:
a. Evolution is accepted world wide, it did not achieve this without mountains of evidence.
b. As to the opposition of such, the only groups that oppose evolution are those who see it as a contradiction to their faith.
c. Every argument that I have ever seen re anti-evolution, has been refuted.

#45 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 01 August 2005 - 05:47 AM

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 29 2005, 11:12 PM)
I don't do hypothetical questions and you have failed to support anything you post. Not one shred of evidence. All you appear to be capable of doping is to say "No it's not" or "yes it is".

chance:
Pity, hypothetical questioning is an interesting and valid way to rationalise ideas to see if they can withstand criticism.


Hypothetical questions are not a valid way to do anything. Ideas withstand criticism if they stand up to reality.

chance:
John - now, please, it is you, not I, that fails to provide detailed explanation of a POV when asked.


The evidence, ie your posts, show you have yet to provide any explanation that would substantiate the claims made by evolutionists.


QUOTE
The bottom line here people is that IF evolutionists could substantiate their claims there wouldn't be any debate on the topic. There wouldn't be an ID. There would be theistic evolution and there wouldn't be any Creation model. I would surely still be an evolutionist.

chance:
The bottom line is:
a. Evolution is accepted world wide, it did not achieve this without mountains of evidence.


Creation is also accepted around the world. A recent Galup poll shows that Americans favor Creation and theistic evolution over non-theistic evolution about 91% to 9%.

Also it should be noted that not one evolutionist can substantiate the claims made by the ToE.

chance:
b. As to the opposition of such, the only groups that oppose evolution are those who see it as a contradiction to their faith.


The ToE is based on faith.

Chance:
c. Every argument that I have ever seen re anti-evolution, has been refuted.


I have yet to read or hear one that would substantiate it. IOW those anti-evolution arguments were most likely "refuted" with nonsense as that is all the ToE is.

#46 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 01 August 2005 - 02:36 PM

I don't do hypothetical questions and you have failed to support anything you post. Not one shred of evidence. All you appear to be capable of doping is to say "No it's not" or "yes it is".

chance: Pity, hypothetical questioning is an interesting and valid way to rationalise ideas to see if they can withstand criticism.

JP> Hypothetical questions are not a valid way to do anything. Ideas withstand criticism if they stand up to reality.


John now your just shooting from the hip, you are quite wrong, google Hypothetical syllogism.


chance: John - now, please, it is you, not I, that fails to provide detailed explanation of a POV when asked.

JP> The evidence, ie your posts, show you have yet to provide any explanation that would substantiate the claims made by evolutionists.


So you say. Lets just stick to specifics shall we, and leave the innuendo.


The bottom line here people is that IF evolutionists could substantiate their claims there wouldn't be any debate on the topic. There wouldn't be an ID. There would be theistic evolution and there wouldn't be any Creation model. I would surely still be an evolutionist.

chance: The bottom line is:
a. Evolution is accepted world wide, it did not achieve this without mountains of evidence.

JP>
Creation is also accepted around the world. A recent Galup poll shows that Americans favor Creation and theistic evolution over non-theistic evolution about 91% to 9%.

Also it should be noted that not one evolutionist can substantiate the claims made by the ToE.


Laughable, first America is not the whole world, and second ‘scientific facts’ are not determined by popular vote!!! Science wonks with evidence, there is no room for ‘political correctness’.



chance: b. As to the opposition of such, the only groups that oppose evolution are those who see it as a contradiction to their faith.


JP> The ToE is based on faith.


Incorrect, evidence is the correct answer.


Chance: c. Every argument that I have ever seen re anti-evolution, has been refuted.

JP> I have yet to read or hear one that would substantiate it. IOW those anti-evolution arguments were most likely "refuted" with nonsense as that is all the ToE is.


I stand by that claim, the refutations often clarify what is actually claimed by evolution, and what is reputedly claimed by creationists. Much is also made of oversimplifications and the use of inappropriate analogies by creationists. Just a perusal of the first few posts of each of the topics in this forum is usually followed with a clarification of what the evolutionary perspective really is.

#47 Guest_Aristarchus_*

Guest_Aristarchus_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 August 2005 - 03:57 PM

Once again, you are looking for a proof, and science doesn't work that way. Current evolutionary theory is consistent with all we see in the world. It is consistent with the fossil record and the geologic column. It is consistent with the genetic differences between species, families, orders, genera etc. It is consistent with the age of the earth. It is consistent with the changes what we can see in a few lifetimes of micro-evolution. It is consistent with animal breeding. It is consistent with what we know about the size and age of the universe. This list goes on and on and on.

If you don't like this theory then great. Propose a better one and let's see how long it can remain standing. So go ahead, if you have a better theory, then tell me what your theory predicts. How should the fossils be laid down? What sort of genetic differences should be found in the animals found on the planet. I notice you have been hesitating to provide a competing theory, but I am happy to listen. You seem to think that other theories are consistent with the evidence? Then propose one and show how it works.

Most people that look at all the evidence are convinced. I would guess that for every 1000 people that go from creationist to evolutionist, you will have trouble finding one that goes the other way. If you are not convinced, that's fine. I love looking at new theories and would be happy to look at yours. But if you want to claim the earth is flat and you have been abducted by aliens, that's fine too. I wouldn't want you teach my kids, but you are welcome to believe whatever you want.

You say things like this.

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 29 2005, 04:08 PM)
Radiometric dating- Has never been calibrated. We do not yet know what makes an atom unstable and all we do know is that some time during its life it starts to decay.

View Post

But of course they've been calibrated with ice layers, varves, and even human artifacts with known dates. This is an old field and the physics of this has been worked out in detail. But if you want to take on the Nobel prize winners in this field and say it is all wrong, then go for it. I would love to see how your new theory measures up.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm
http://www.asa3.org/...rces/Wiens.html

And this is the comment I always find amusing.

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 29 2005, 04:08 PM)
Why is it that you are a "theistic evolutionist"? Obviously you find the atheistic version un-palatable

View Post

There seems to be an implicit assumption that if the truth and your religious views are in conflict, then you are morally responsible to deny the truth. I am not afraid of the truth. My beliefs are not weakened by what I see in the world.

The Catholic church has found the evidence of an old earth and evolution overwhelming. Is this the sort of group that would be easily convinced? They put their own scientists to explore these issues and they even brought in people that are known atheists to hear their views.
http://www.bbc.co.uk...cientists.shtml

I find it bizarre that any individual or group actually interested in the truth would feel the need to close their minds to the evidence, or make up fables to prop up their views (leaf insects before leaves? men lived with dinosaurs?).

It was a Jesuit Priest that developed the theory of the Big Bang. If this is the truth, why should this be a Christian or non-Christian issue or one where religions are required to take sides?
http://www.catholice...nce/sc0022.html

I am confident that in another 200 years, young earth creationism will go the way of the flat earth theory and the geocentic theory of the universe. Will that mark the end of Christianity? Of course not.

#48 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 August 2005 - 06:20 PM

But of course they've been calibrated with ice layers, varves, and even human artifacts with known dates. This is an old field and the physics of this has been worked out in detail.


I'm sorry, but this is as about as silly as it gets. There is no "time standard" layed down anywhere in the earth, whether its ice varves, or sediment varves, or any other kind of varves. There are assumptions that go into all of those interpretations, and if you believe that just because people can line things up to agree with what they "want to see", then you are a very trusting person. This is a very complicated subject, but all is not as "cut and dried" as you suggest it is.

The Catholic church has found the evidence of an old earth and evolution overwhelming. Is this the sort of group that would be easily convinced?


The position of the catholic church is meaningless in any debate about the age of the earth, or anything else.

Terry

#49 futzman

futzman

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Tulsa, OK

Posted 01 August 2005 - 07:54 PM

Why is it that Calipithecus, chance or Ari have yet to provide any evidence that natural selection, especially acting on random mutations, can do what evolutionists claim it did & can?


The fossil record is so saturated with it, you'd have to be blind or stupid not to see it. You aren't blind, are you? Or is it that you simply have not looked?

That is accounting for the range of morphological & phenotypic change required if all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms? Surely there must be hundreds if not thousands of such scenarios. But alas there isn't even one.


See above.

All we get is assertion after assertion using variations and then falsely extrapolating from those variations that greater, non-observable, non-testable and non-verifiable transformations can take place.


That is just such a ridiculous statement that it really doesn't warrant a response. You really didn't pay much attention in science class did you John Paul?

Instead of proposing "thought experiments" or "hypothetical questions", why don't they present the scientific data that supports their claims? And you would be correct if you inferred the reason they don't do so is because such evidence does not exist and the ToE is built on the assumption, with a heavy anti-ID bias, and relies more on faith than actual research.

View Post


It's been presented time and time and time again. To blatantly and dishonestly ignore it as if it doesn't exist is just dishonest and stupid. What more can I say? At some point, to quote your precious Bible, "don't throw your pearls to the swine". Well, I'm done reading this rubbish.

We present a list of transitionals a mile long, we discuss the fossil record which contains THOUSANDS of transitionals (extreme ends of ALL phyla), genetic research and all you do is say "where are transitionals?". I'm done with this forum of imbeciles. I'm tired of wasting my time on people whose religions proclaim the "truth" and yet have no use for it. Be advised though that the real truth will win out, as it has progressively throughout history. Time is on the side of the evidence and critical thinking.

I had several "banned" members tell me to not waste my time here. They were right. I'm honored to join their ranks.

#50 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 01 August 2005 - 10:38 PM

"We present a list of transitionals a mile long, we discuss the fossil record which contains THOUSANDS of transitionals"

Really, this is interesting. Strange I've never heard about any example standing up to debate.

#51 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 August 2005 - 11:41 PM

"We present a list of transitionals a mile long, we discuss the fossil record which contains THOUSANDS of transitionals"

Really, this is interesting. Strange I've never heard about any example standing up to debate.

View Post

I wouldn't worry too much about that. I'd focus more on how well the examples hold up under your own powers of logic and reason.

#52 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 04:36 AM

QUOTE(crystaleaglesprings @ Aug 1 2005, 10:38 PM)
"We present a list of transitionals a mile long, we discuss the fossil record which contains THOUSANDS of transitionals"

Really, this is interesting. Strange I've never heard about any example standing up to debate.


Cal:
I wouldn't worry too much about that. I'd focus more on how well the examples hold up under your own powers of logic and reason.


You should focus on how well those examples hold up to reality. And as of today reality demonstrates that there isn't any mutation- selection process that can account for the range of change required if all of life's diverty owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms.

#53 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 04:44 AM

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 29 2005, 03:08 PM)
Why is it that Calipithecus, chance or Ari have yet to provide any evidence that natural selection, especially acting on random mutations, can do what evolutionists claim it did & can?

futzman:
The fossil record is so saturated with it, you'd have to be blind or stupid not to see it. You aren't blind, are you? Or is it that you simply have not looked?


Reality says you are a liar.


QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 29 2005, 03:08 PM)
That is accounting for the range of morphological & phenotypic change required if all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms? Surely there must be hundreds if not thousands of such scenarios. But alas there isn't even one.


futzman:
See above.


Again fossils can't say anything about a mechanism. That is a fact only idiots overlook.


QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 29 2005, 03:08 PM)
All we get is assertion after assertion using variations and then falsely extrapolating from those variations that greater, non-observable, non-testable and non-verifiable transformations can take place.

futzman:
That is just such a ridiculous statement that it really doesn't warrant a response. You really didn't pay much attention in science class did you John Paul?


If it is ridiculous you have been unable to substantiate the claim. IOW your bald assertion means nada.


QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 29 2005, 03:08 PM)
Instead of proposing "thought experiments" or "hypothetical questions", why don't they present the scientific data that supports their claims? And you would be correct if you inferred the reason they don't do so is because such evidence does not exist and the ToE is built on the assumption, with a heavy anti-ID bias, and relies more on faith than actual research.


futzman:
It's been presented time and time and time again. To blatantly and dishonestly ignore it as if it doesn't exist is just dishonest and stupid. What more can I say? At some point, to quote your precious Bible, "don't throw your pearls to the swine". Well, I'm done reading this rubbish.


The evidence demonstrates you are the stupid one.

futzman:
We present a list of transitionals a mile long, we discuss the fossil record which contains THOUSANDS of transitionals (extreme ends of ALL phyla), genetic research and all you do is say "where are transitionals?". I'm done with this forum of imbeciles. I'm tired of wasting my time on people whose religions proclaim the "truth" and yet have no use for it. Be advised though that the real truth will win out, as it has progressively throughout history. Time is on the side of the evidence and critical thinking.

I had several "banned" members tell me to not waste my time here. They were right. I'm honored to join their ranks.


True. You are a waste of time. Genetic research does not support the ToE. I have not once used the Bible or the Qu'ran to support my views.

#54 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 04:56 AM

Ari:
Once again, you are looking for a proof, and science doesn't work that way.


THat is a lie. I am not looking for proof. How anyone can infer that from what I posted is beyond me.

Ari:
Current evolutionary theory is consistent with all we see in the world.


That is nothing but a bald assertion.

Ari:
It is consistent with the fossil record and the geologic column.


More bald assertions.

Ari:
It is consistent with the genetic differences between species, families, orders, genera etc. It is consistent with the age of the earth. It is consistent with the changes what we can see in a few lifetimes of micro-evolution. It is consistent with animal breeding. It is consistent with what we know about the size and age of the universe. This list goes on and on and on.


And still more bald assertions.


Ari:
If you don't like this theory then great. Propose a better one and let's see how long it can remain standing. So go ahead, if you have a better theory, then tell me what your theory predicts. How should the fossils be laid down? What sort of genetic differences should be found in the animals found on the planet. I notice you have been hesitating to provide a competing theory, but I am happy to listen. You seem to think that other theories are consistent with the evidence? Then propose one and show how it works.


ID is more consistent with the genetic evidence than the ToE.

Ari:
Most people that look at all the evidence are convinced.


And yet another bald assertion.

Ari:
I would guess that for every 1000 people that go from creationist to evolutionist, you will have trouble finding one that goes the other way.


I know of only one who went from Creationist to evolutionist. I know of many more that went from evolutionist to IDist or Creationist.

Ari:
If you are not convinced, that's fine. I love looking at new theories and would be happy to look at yours. But if you want to claim the earth is flat and you have been abducted by aliens, that's fine too. I wouldn't want you teach my kids, but you are welcome to believe whatever you want.


It's not just me. There are millions more who remain unconvonced. Many of those are scientists.

Ari:
You say things like this.

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 31 2005, 11:08 AM)
QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 29 2005, 04:08 PM)
Radiometric dating- Has never been calibrated. We do not yet know what makes an atom unstable and all we do know is that some time during its life it starts to decay.


That happens to be true.

Ari:
But of course they've been calibrated with ice layers, varves, and even human artifacts with known dates. This is an old field and the physics of this has been worked out in detail. But if you want to take on the Nobel prize winners in this field and say it is all wrong, then go for it. I would love to see how your new theory measures up.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm
http://www.asa3.org/...rces/Wiens.html

And this is the comment I always find amusing.

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 31 2005, 11:08 AM)
QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 29 2005, 04:08 PM)
Why is it that you are a "theistic evolutionist"? Obviously you find the atheistic version un-palatable


Amusing or not why don't you answer the question?

Ari:
There seems to be an implicit assumption that if the truth and your religious views are in conflict, then you are morally responsible to deny the truth. I am not afraid of the truth. My beliefs are not weakened by what I see in the world.


You are truly clueless. I hold no such position. My religious views to not get in the way of my determining reality, which is the only truth I am after.

Ari:
The Catholic church has found the evidence of an old earth and evolution overwhelming.


Evolution, perhaps. The ToE, no way.

#55 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 05:01 AM

JP> The ToE is based on faith.

chance:
Incorrect, evidence is the correct answer.


What evidence? The fossil record can't say anything about a mechanism and therefore is of no help. Genetics offers no help as we don't even know what makes a species what it is.

Morphological AND genetic similarities have been confirned to arise via convergent "evolution".

So what is this alleged evidence? Is there ANY evidence that shows any mutation - selection process can account for the range of change required if all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms?

Please present that evidence.


JP> The evidence, ie your posts, show you have yet to provide any explanation that would substantiate the claims made by evolutionists.

chance:
So you say. Lets just stick to specifics shall we, and leave the innuendo.


Seeing that you just had an opportunity to refute my claim and failed to do so, that is as specific as it gets. Facts are not innuendo. I stand by my statement. Your refusal to offer the alleged evidence is evidence enough that I am correct.

#56 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 02 August 2005 - 01:44 PM

[quote name='John Paul' date='Aug 2 2005, 10:01 PM']
Plenty of evidence has been presented. Your answer to this evidence is to responded with denial of it’s existence, and/or posit some phantom pre-requisite. John Paul I suspect you do not wish to actually debate the evolution/creation, either that or you believe a response like “no it isn’t” is a form of debate.

Given the recent ‘temperature’ of the last few posts, I think it appropriate for a time out on this topic, it seems to have gone past the point on no return. So I raise the white flag.

#57 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 05 August 2005 - 04:37 AM

[quote name='chance' date='Aug 2 2005, 04:44 PM']
[quote name='John Paul' date='Aug 2 2005, 10:01 PM']
Plenty of evidence has been presented. Your answer to this evidence is to responded with denial of it’s existence, and/or posit some phantom pre-requisite. John Paul I suspect you do not wish to actually debate the evolution/creation, either that or you believe a response like “no it isn’t” is a form of debate.

Given the recent ‘temperature’ of the last few posts, I think it appropriate for a time out on this topic, it seems to have gone past the point on no return. So I raise the white flag.

View Post

[/quote]

The evidence that has been presented does not support the notion that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms without first assuming that is the way it was. THere isn't any evidence that the proposed mutation- selection process can bring about such transformations. So when you say the evidence has been presented it makes me wonder how the ToE came to be accepted by anyone in the first place.

IOW the evidence presented can fit other scenarios like Creation, ID and theistic evolution.

The ToE doesn't have a smoking gun, a gun, bullets nor even a body.

As I have stated several times now if evolutionsts could substantiate their cliams I would still be an evolutionist and no other alternatives wiould have been presented. However most evolutionists are like the evos who post here- presenting evidence that isn't exclusive to any idea and not presenting evidence that would be.


The genetic evidence, ie molecular clocks show that chimps "clock" has ticked 34 times and humans 13 times since the alleged divergence. That would mean that the common ancester was more human-like than ape-like. However no one says that in text books.

This thread is about natural selection. Science has shown that NS is dwarfed by other factors (84% dwarfs 16%). The ONLY way around that fact is through obfuscation.

Reading "chance's" posts makes that abudantly clear.

#58 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 August 2005 - 02:14 PM

Per this request:

It is what the scientific research to date shows. Again if you have evidence that contradicts the number, now would be a good time to present it.

View Post



As I pointed out near the top of this thread (and as Berlinski also noted), the paper by Kingsolver et al (The Strength of Phenotypic Selection in Natural Populations) was second-order in nature; it was a study of studies. Among the conclusions was that the studies they studied could not be regarded as comprehensive.

-----------------------------------
"We reviewed the literature from 1984 through 1997 for studies that estimated the strength of linear and quadratic selection in terms of standardized selection gradients or differentials on natural variation in quantitative traits for field populations. We tabulated 63 published studies of 62 species that reported over 2,500 estimates of linear or quadratic selection. More than 80% of the estimates were for morphological traits; there is very little data for behavioral or physiological traits. Most published selection studies were unreplicated and had sample sizes below 135 individuals, resulting in low statistical power to detect selection of the magnitude typically reported for natural populations."
-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------
"These criteria exclude many important and interesting studies of selection; we estimate that more than half of all studies of selection in our target journals were excluded by these criteria."
-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------
"Our analyses also indicate that the average strength of selection varies among fitness components: in particular, selection via survival tends to be weaker than selection via fecundity or mating success".
-----------------------------------

If you want to talk -- at a level of detail, and including actual arguments -- about the Kingsolver paper, and the 16% / 80% thing, then I'd be happy to participate. I have no interest whatsoever in seeing any more of your handwaving.

#59 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 29 August 2005 - 09:33 PM

Handwaving? LoL!

I notice you have yet to post anything that would show the "power" of NS.

IOW what is there to discuss? I know science isn't perfect but you must have something to substantiate your tripe.

Genetic homeostatsis is the real observed tendency in a population/ in populations. That would indicate that NS is a conserving force. At least one prominent geneticist agrees.

So the bottom line is you can qubble about the referenced paper all you want, until you post something that contradicts it or Sermonti, I have no choice but to go with what we do have. You have the freedom to choose against that position but it is a choice borne of faith. And you can discuss faith in another forum...

#60 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 August 2005 - 08:25 AM

Genetic homeostatsis is the real observed tendency in a population/ in populations. That would indicate that NS is a conserving force. At least one prominent geneticist agrees.

Feel free to quote from Sermonti if you want, but if (as your opening post suggests) you intend to try to use the Kingsolver paper to support your position, you really might want to consider actually reading it first. Had you done that, you might have seen this:

-------------------------
"These results suggest that quadratic selection is typically quite weak, and they provide no evidence that stabilizing selection is stronger or more common than disruptive selection."
-------------------------

So the bottom line is you can qubble about the referenced paper all you want, until you post something that contradicts it or Sermonti, I have no choice but to go with what we do have

If, by "quibbling", you mean: "looking closely at the details", then I plead guilty. But I am not attempting to contradict Kingsolver, I'm merely pointing out where you have misinterpreted his results. Actually, I suspect that you haven't even put forth the effort that would be required to do that properly. Your misinterpretation appears to be more of the second-hand variety, an observation consistent with the frequency with which you can be seen to rely on arguments from authority like: "at least one prominent geneticist agrees".




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users