Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About PhilC

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
  • How old are you?
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    no affiliation
  • What is your Worldview?
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
  1. PhilC

    Empirical Evidence For Evolution

    Thanks, Ron. You can't say fairer than that! I've read the rules and it says that no links are allowed because a few lines have to be put to show that one understands the thing linked to. I wrote the things linked to, so they are in my own words. It took quite a time, so I think I can dodge the 'lazy' bullet My repost: There is a lot of empirical evidence and it all fits together so that a single facet of it on its own isn't sufficient. In a number of oter threads I have detailed the empirical evidence and it would help if many of them were read with the others in mind. The 'odd one out' is ...erm... the odd one out in this regard as it stands alone: This link explains embryology and is useful to understand these concepts before reading the rest: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...?showtopic=3527 This link shows how variation can and does occur without having to posit mutations for every change: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...?showtopic=3491 This link shows the physiological evidence of our circulation in the context of ewmbryology and development: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...?showtopic=3484 This link goes into more detail on one of the particular issues raised in the previous link: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...?showtopic=3493 Here are some fossils that also show the changes in embryo;s and is related to the others above in that I have concentrated on the changes that happen in the pharyngeal arches and how those changes are seen in the fossil record: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...?showtopic=3485 This one shows that beneficial mutations do happen and so provide the additional information and variation for the above to occur: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...?showtopic=3471 This one is a study of a transitional and shows that it is a transitional because it is so close to a group that it is not actually classed as: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...?showtopic=3486
  2. PhilC

    De-evolution Vs Evolution

    You are quoting me out of context. I directly followed that quote with:
  3. PhilC

    Empirical Evidence For Evolution

    The Edit button is only available for a while, so that you have a limited time to change anything / correct any mistakes. Then you're stuck. It's a good compromise between not allowing any editing and a free-for-all, I think.
  4. PhilC


    If the gene is expressed because of the level of a chemical then it is the level of the chemical that is the limiting factor, not the number of genes that are there. Remember that any with deleterious mutations will be removed from the genepool by natural selection. Any neutral genes will stay and any beneficial genes will be selected for. With a gene that is "spare" then some 'experimentation' can occur (not the best word, as it suggests a will to do something, but I hope you know what I mean)
  5. PhilC

    De-evolution Vs Evolution

    I said that the fossils would all be jumbled together but in fact they aren't. We know that now since the 18th century but the ancients didn't. It is that specific detail that needs discussing. I agree that sometimes you can show that if the general detail fails the specifics aren't any use, but many times a general point like "fossils could be caused by the flood" doesn't sufficiently explain the specific details of how the fossils are distributed. Galen sometimes did get it right, and he did a great deal to help physicians. I am not going to disrespect this great man, but some of his theories are now known to be wrong because of modern knowledge (like Harvey in the 16th century). If we now know more than the ancients, should we rely on them totally as Cass seems to do?
  6. PhilC

    Is Dawkins Dishonest

    When I say formal debates I mean two people standing face to face in front of an audience with 20 minutes for a first presentation and 5 minutes for a rebuttal. I will gladly discuss the evidence and have started numerous threads where this has been done, plus contributed to other peoples threads with empirical evidence. From your point of view, my evidence is based on faith and I'm guessing for that reason you haven't discussed any of that, because you think any evidence of mine is a priori flawed by presupposition
  7. PhilC

    Empirical Evidence For Evolution

    Sorry, Ron. I did label each one to show what the evidence within it contained, so didn't just list them. Maybe I should have increased the detail for each of the links but I thought that the label would be enough. Would you like me to repost with a line or two for each of the links? It's too late to edit the post.
  8. PhilC


    I was just saying 'hilarous' rather than just 'funny'! Having twice the genes doesn't always mean twice the gene expression. The thing switching the gene on isn't necessarily doubled, and obvioulsy in plant polyploidy it can't be an issue, plus there are many cases of gene duplication that don't cause issues.
  9. PhilC


    Seriously, now. Let's get back to the discussion, and my comments about your points. BTW - I genuinely thought "Yay you said evolutionary assumption" was hilarious!
  10. PhilC

    De-evolution Vs Evolution

    Once again a creationist is looking at the general argument not the specific details. I showed the way that we would expect the fossils to show if the flood caused them, but you ignore that. You also take the words of ancient people over words of modern scientists. We do know more now, or should we still use Galen for our medicine?
  11. PhilC

    Evolutionists Clueless On The Moon

    D'oh! Of course, I should have spotted that one. Boy, am I stupid!
  12. PhilC

    Empirical Evidence For Evolution

    I have posted the links because each in itself is a relatively detailed study of an individual piece of the framework of emirical evidence. The evidence is multifaceted and to understand evolution you have to see how all of them point to the same thing. None of the individual strands are enough on their own, and some (like geograhical distribution) are more important than others (like the fossil evidence) but it is important to consider all of them together. I am not going to repost all of those in this one thread. As to the one that you say has been refuted, I would disagree (if it's the variation one). I keep complaining that creationists only look at the general detail and it is the detail that is important. In that thread this has happened. I presented a specific experiment with specific results but the detail of that hasn't been discussed yet. This isn't the place to do that but until the details are discussed it can't be considered refuted. If it's another one then ignore that paragraph and tell me which one you do mean. The empirical evidence is in those threads. Most have been ignored, and yet still we get "can you show us the evidence?" threads opened.
  13. I was talking about science books in general. School text books are different and UK ones different to American ones. It's interesting that you have highlighted three cases where the scientists pointed out that these were wrong. Creationists didn't. This is the self-correction I am talking about that creationism doesn't have. You do not talk about the errors and misrepresentations in the creationist literature or take me up on my offer to start the conversation again. These things are revealing. We have shown that it is perfectly possible to understand and disagree, and we have provided you with examples where understanding of the evolutionist point of view would make a huge difference even if you disagreed with it.
  14. PhilC

    Empirical Evidence For Evolution

    Also the geographic distribution of species and the position of fossils in the geologic column. I've only partly written these up, though.
  15. PhilC

    Empirical Evidence For Evolution

    Variation: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...?showtopic=3491 Physiology: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...?showtopic=3484 More physiology: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...?showtopic=3493 Beneficial mutations: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...?showtopic=3471 Some fossils http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...?showtopic=3485 Odd one out; http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...?showtopic=3486 embryology http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...?showtopic=3527 <This post is a violation of the rules, and is under review>

Important Information

Our Terms