Is evolution a fact?

[Mr_Wilford]

Good to know Bernhard, except I read that list before you posted it and it's patently wrong. Also, I see you're still lying about the implications of the HGT model. How s uprising

You know, maybe it could be that evolution is part of science,
so it only presupposes what science does

Actually, that is it. I know this because I bothered to learn.

Goodbye Bernhard. I hope one day you use those ears to hear and don't just stick your fingers in them like you've always done.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Evolution presuppositions:

1) The first presupposition is that life arose and came to being naturally with no need of a divine creator.

The argument to claim there is no God does not exist. Therefore presupposition.

2) the second presupposition is life arose from non life.

Never been observed, it is science Law that life arose from life. Not only is this a false evolutionary presupposition, but anti science

3) the third presup, is that life can be traced to a common ancestor (LUCA) or single trunk.

Patently false, HGT proves this, and anti science

4) it all began with a simple cell that changed, mutated.

Can never be observed, it is guessed., anti science.

5) survival of the fittest

Presupposition because not always the fittest survive. How do we know they are the fittest? They survived.. Circular. Why did they survive? They are the fittest.

6) evolution does not have direction. Simply random
It is observed animals and plants have purpose. Therefore anti science.

http://www.hprweb.com/2011/10/presuppositions-of-darwinism/


So many presuppositions, so anti science, it can only be ignorance. There simply is no rebuttal.

1. Wrong, nothing to do with evolution

2. Wrong, nothing to do with evolution

3. Can be seen through certain models, see hacks paper. You are lying about the HGT model again, as has been explained several times. You've just ignored it.

*Edit: Linked in #4.

(You also changed this one from the original argument to support your lies. The link mentions no single trunk. Good job misrepresenting your own citations in typical creationist fashion. You disgust me, really, that's just pathetic.)

4. Indicutive reasoning, was introduced after evolution formed, can be shown through mathematical calculations, see Hacks paper, and is a once again an inference, not presupposed.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/universal-common-ancestor/

Despite the difficulties of formally testing evolution—especially back across the eons to the emergence of life itself—Theobald was able to run rigorous statistical analyses on the amino acid sequences in 23 universally conserved proteins across the three major divisions of life (eukaryotes, bacteria and archaea). By plugging these sequences into various relational and evolutionary models, he found that a universal common ancestor is at least 10^2,860 more likely to have produced the modern-day protein sequence variances than even the next most probable scenario (involving multiple separate ancestors).*

It isn't without good support, it isn't unsubstantiated, and it isn't a presupposition. It's testable. You're wrong again.

5. The fittest are most likely to survive, not the only ones who do. Organisms most fit for their environment survive more often and pass on their genes, leading to descent with modification. Jesus Bernhard, even creationists agree with this. Based on observation, not presupposed.

6. Based on observation of microevolution and speciation, not presupposed, is subject to change as new data enters. Although it isnt entirely random, there is selective pressure to conform to the environment, so there is a guiding force. You're wrong. I agree all plants and animals have a role, but calling it purpose is highly subjective.

And Bernhard, perhaps you've noticed I've never mentioned Evolutionary mechanisms any time here, except for pointing out flaws in your "debunking" of the cave fish. That's because I myself am somewhat skeptical of the proposed Mechanisms powers (probably based on ignorance, might start a new thread to ask my questions). I only advocate for Common Ancestry at this point because that's the only evidence I know well. Because I don't step out of my scope of knowledge in a discussion.

If you did any amount of reaserch at all instead of sticking to willful ignorance, perhaps you'd know a good portion of the ID crowd accepts UCA already, they just doubt the mechanisms. That's because they acknowledge the evidence for UCA is strongly supported.

And you are not one to call anything anti science. Scientists don't ignore data offhand, that's all you ever do. Remember the telomeres?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

This is just getting sad now.

You and I have very different definitions for sadness. I thought his actions were sad from around the third or fourth page of this thread. After about the tenth, he just became pathetic.

 

[JRChadwick]

I wish I was still a moderator so I could finally end this thread.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

 

[MarsCydonia]

The argument to claim there is no God does not exist. Therefore presupposition.

2) the second presupposition is life arose from non life.

Never been observed, it is science Law that life arose from life. Not only is this a false evolutionary presupposition, but anti science.

You do know that this is an affirmation of your religion?

 

[Deleted member 619]

Evolution presuppositions:

1) The first presupposition is that life arose and came to being naturally with no need of a divine creator.

Not a presupposition of evolution and, in fact, not even relevant to evolutionary theory, which has precisely fuck all to say on the origin of life, because it only deals with biodiversity.

The argument to claim there is no God does not exist. Therefore presupposition.

There are many arguments to claim there is no god, but evolutionary theory doesn't make any of them. Besides, your god definjitely doesn;t exist. Not a presupposition of evolution, just a categorical statement of fact.

2) the second presupposition is life arose from non life.

This is essentially a reframing of the first presupposition, although the way this is worded it's actually easy to demonstrate that this is a true statement, because the history of the universe is well-understood, and it's known that it was once unable to support life in any form, because there were no elements capable of forming long chains which is a categorical necessity for life.

And that's before we even deal with the fact that this is abiogenesis again, and has precisely fuck all to do with evolutionary theory, which only deals with biodiversity.

Never been observed, it is science Law that life arose from life.

What science law is that, pray tell? From whose orifice was this law extracted?

Not only is this a false evolutionary presupposition, but anti science

Not only is this NOT an evolutionary presupposition, but you wouldn't know science if it landed a spacecraft on your lawn and anally probed you.

3) the third presup, is that life can be traced to a common ancestor (LUCA) or single trunk.

Not a presupposition, but a prediction of evolutionary theory.

Patently false, HGT proves this, and anti science

Ignorant fucking arse-water. Horizontal gene transfer has precisely no impact on this prediction.

4) it all began with a simple cell that changed, mutated.

Not even a prediction of evolution, let alone a presupposition, This is nothing more than a cretinist caricature of abiogenesis, and is simply a palsied reworking of your first two alleged presuppositions.

Can never be observed, it is guessed., anti science.

Still talking bollocks.

5) survival of the fittest

Presupposition because not always the fittest survive. How do we know they are the fittest? They survived.. Circular. Why did they survive? They are the fittest.

Yes, it is circular, but as I have already beaten you about the head with, ALL definitions are circular, and this isn't a problem for definitions, because definitions aren't deductions. Fitness has a very specific definition in quantitative areas of evolutionary theory, namely performance against an expectation with regard to number of reproducing offspring. It's defined this way because evolutionary theory deals with fitness and variations in frequencies of alleles.

In the vernacular definition, the phrase should be 'survival of the sufficiently fit, on average'. Never forget that evolution is a population phenomenon, and statistical in nature.

6) evolution does not have direction. Simply random

No, evolution is stochastic and, at the level at which selection is measured, entirely non-random. That aside, this isn't a presupposition, but an evidentially supported postulate, and it is observed to be the case.

It is observed animals and plants have purpose.

No it isn't. You're falsely conflating function with purpose.

Therefore anti science.

I refer you to my earlier comment.

So many presuppositions, so anti science, it can only be ignorance. There simply is no rebuttal.

Except the one I've just given.

Seriously, your tactic of evading the question was a better one. As Lincoln allegedly said, better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Now I know why you didn't want to post these. Sixty-seven plus pages of discussion and you still don't know how science works or even what the theory of evolution is.

Also, the site from which these came is lying to you, sorry to say.

1) The first presupposition is that life arose and came to being naturally with no need of a divine creator.

The argument to claim there is no God does not exist. Therefore presupposition.

Nope. If a god zapped the first life into existence and it progressed from there that would be compatible with the theory of evolution.

2) the second presupposition is life arose from non life.

Never been observed, it is science Law that life arose from life. Not only is this a false evolutionary presupposition, but anti science

Nope. See response to 1). Life almost certainly did arise from non-life but again that is a conclusion of other science and has nothing to do with evolution -- as a presupposition or otherwise. Also the bold bit is utter nonsense. No such law exists in science and we've known for over a century that organic chemicals can arise from inorganic chemicals.

3) the third presup, is that life can be traced to a common ancestor (LUCA) or single trunk.

Patently false, HGT proves this, and anti science

Nope. This is a conclusion arising from evolutionary theory and other evidence. And you still don't understand anything about horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal gene transfer is a form of inheritance, for a start.

3) it all began with a simple cell that changed, mutated.

Can never be observed, it is guessed., anti science.

Nope. Again, evolution has nothing to say about the beginning of life, though precisely no scientists would claim what you are pretending evolution requires.

5) survival of the fittest

Presupposition because not always the fittest survive. How do we know they are the fittest? They survived.. Circular. Why did they survive? They are the fittest.

Nope. First of all "survival of the fittest" is from Herbert Spencer and not part of evolutionary theory. One of the pillars of the theory of evolution is natural selection, which is itself a conclusion based on evidence and which does not state that the fittest always survive.

I can explain how natural selection actually works if you like.

6) evolution does not have direction. Simply random
It is observed animals and plants have purpose. Therefore anti science.

This one is just incoherent. As I have noted at least once, evolution is undirected but it is not random. Also what "purpose" do animals and plants have?

So many presuppositions, so anti science, it can only be ignorance. There simply is no rebuttal.

Except to note that every single one is wrong.

Now that we've established that you understand even less about evolution that I had imagined, do you want to talk further about your claim that mutation and selection can't increase genetic information in an equivalent manner to horizontal gene transfer? Or would you prefer more Humpty Dumpty images?

 

[Rhed]

But I don't believe in Santa.

In the same way that I don't believe in your cosmic arse-bandit.

Atheists who conform to evolutionary thought would see a possibility of a Santa with his flying reindeer.

Not if they had any clue about physics, they wouldn't.

Now this is interesting. So you don't think reindeer could ever fly? Let's say they shed a few pounds, sprouted wing-like structures, and evolved a bioluminescence nose to guide the sleigh. Would it be possible?

 

[Deleted member 619]

So you don't think reindeer could ever fly?

I know they couldn't.

Let's say they shed a few pounds, sprouted wing-like structures, and evolved a bioluminescence nose to guide the sleigh. Would it be possible?

No.

 

[Rhed]

But I don't believe in Santa.

In the same way that I don't believe in your cosmic arse-bandit.

Atheists who conform to evolutionary thought would see a possibility of a Santa with his flying reindeer.

Not if they had any clue about physics, they wouldn't.

Now this is interesting. So you don't think reindeer could ever fly? Let's say they shed a few pounds, sprouted wing-like structures, and evolved a bioluminescence nose to guide the sleigh. Would it be possible?

 

[Rhed]

So you don't think reindeer could ever fly?

I know they couldn't.

Let's say they shed a few pounds, sprouted wing-like structures, and evolved a bioluminescence nose to guide the sleigh. Would it be possible?

No.

Then you are not a true evolutionists. Congrats though, you realized (for a brief moment) how absurd evolution is.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Then you are not a true evolutionists. Congrats though, you realized (for a brief moment) how absurd evolution is.

What's a 'true evolutionist'? I fully accept evolution as the explanation of biodiversity on Earth. Thing is, flying reindeer aren't a prediction of evolutionary theory, and the only magic man with a white beard is your celestial peeping-tom, who doesn't exist.

 

[Rhed]

Then you are not a true evolutionists. Congrats though, you realized (for a brief moment) how absurd evolution is.

What's a 'true evolutionist'? I fully accept evolution as the explanation of biodiversity on Earth. Thing is, flying reindeer aren't a prediction of evolutionary theory, and the only magic man with a white beard is your celestial peeping-tom, who doesn't exist.

I didn't say it was a prediction. I am asking if it at all possible? Is it possible for reindeer to fly?

 

[Deleted member 619]

I didn't say it was a prediction.

Yes you did:

Atheists who conform to evolutionary thought would see a possibility of a Santa with his flying reindeer.

I am asking if it at all possible? Is it possible for reindeer to fly?

No, you're playing discoursive games looking for a gotcha. Problem is, you're too stupid, your game transparent, and there's no gotcha to be had.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Then you are not a true evolutionists. Congrats though, you realized (for a brief moment) how absurd evolution is.

What's a 'true evolutionist'? I fully accept evolution as the explanation of biodiversity on Earth. Thing is, flying reindeer aren't a prediction of evolutionary theory, and the only magic man with a white beard is your celestial peeping-tom, who doesn't exist.

Creationists often can't tell the difference between the theory of evolution and Pokemon.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Indeed.

 

[Rhed]

I didn't say it was a prediction.

Yes you did:

Atheists who conform to evolutionary thought would see a possibility of a Santa with his flying reindeer.

I am asking if it at all possible? Is it possible for reindeer to fly?[/quote]

No, you're playing discoursive games looking for a gotcha. Problem is, you're too stupid, your game transparent, and there's no gotcha to be had.

I'm "opening your eyes" of how absurd evolution is. You won't believe that reindeer could ever fly or there nose could ever light up, but the ToE would have you believe this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus#/media/Fileakicetus_BW.jpg

evolved into this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale#/media/File:Humpback_stellwagen_edit.jpg

 

[Deleted member 619]

I'm "opening your eyes" of how absurd evolution is.

You think you're ina position to educate me? Are you really that fucking stupid?

You won't believe that reindeer could ever fly or there nose could ever light up, but the ToE would have you believe this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus#/media/Fileakicetus_BW.jpg

evolved into this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale#/media/File:Humpback_stellwagen_edit.jpg

That's what the evidence suggests. You have other evidence?

 

[Rhed]

I'm "opening your eyes" of how absurd evolution is.

You think you're ina position to educate me? Are you really that fucking stupid?

You won't believe that reindeer could ever fly or there nose could ever light up, but the ToE would have you believe this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus#/media/Fileakicetus_BW.jpg

evolved into this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale#/media/File:Humpback_stellwagen_edit.jpg

That's what the evidence suggests. You have other evidence?

That's the evidence interpreted according to the evolutionary fable. How I interpret the evidence is that a whale is a whale and a rodent is a rodent. What amazes me is that you don't question the rodent to whale evolution, but preposterous to believe a reindeer could ever fly with glowing noses. You see how absurd it is but you must sacrifice your brain to Darwin.