Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bernhard.visscher said:I consider every evolutionary scientist Darwin to Dawkins an argument from authority.
Consider this: I accept their science, but not their conclusions.
this evolution has to be accepted by atheists
Remember if evolution is false.. God exists.
Bernhard.visscher said:Remember if evolution is false.. God exists.
Did a living, breathing person with a brain actually just type this out?Bernhard.visscher said:Remember if evolution is false.. God exists.
God existing as a premise? No, I cannot accept that. As a conclusion to a deductively valid and sound argument, yes I can accept that.Bernhard.visscher said:An atheist cannot accept that premise of God existing so evolution must be true.
Probably, but we can't prove it, we can only assign it a very high probability based on available evidence, which according to Bernhard is the same as having no evidence.Rumraket said:Did a living, breathing person with a brain actually just type this out?Bernhard.visscher said:Remember if evolution is false.. God exists.
Rhed said:Using your analogy, couldn't a reindeer be the CA? Mammals (e.g. bats, reindeer, whales) can fly, swim, and walk on legs, so could a reindeer split into two populations: R and H? Say population H climbs cliffs to find food. They gradually evolve wing-like structures to move place to place faster, or using their rear legs for weapons, or so they can catch faster prey. They become smaller so they are able to fly. Millions of years from now, they are still "CA". They are still mammals. They may be called something other than reindeer, so is it possible this could happen to the present-day reindeer?
Inferno said:No, this could not conceivably happen.
There are a couple of laws according to which evolution happens.
I point you to the "Falsifying Phylogeny" playlist, specifically this video. At 10:09, a few laws are listed and explain why certain things can not happen if evolution is true. (Like a Crocoduck. If evolution is true, that can't ever happen.) The second important video in that series is the first, starting at roughly 08:30.
Monophyly (clade)
The problem with this “law” is how could you possibly falsify it? Nothing was ever observed or ever demonstrated. For example, if you cannot fit a subgenera into the same monophyletic tree, use convergent evolution (rescue device) to explain the similarities. Instead of the genus as monophyletic, mark the genus as polyphyletic.
See about the 12 subgenera of Appalachian crayfish:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0046105
How do the clades par with the fossil record? Not so good for the higher primates:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Norell+ ... x8dmTIM%3A
When the clades and fossil records don’t match, just blame incompleteness (rescue device) of the fossil record and draw dotted lines for the ad-hoc ghost lineages to match the order.
It’s completely subjective, and cannot be falsified whatsoever.
Abstract said:Using Cambarus we test the correspondence of subgeneric designations based on morphology used in traditional crayfish taxonomy to the underlying evolutionary history for these crayfish. We further test for significant correlation and explanatory power of geographic distance, taxonomic model, and a habitat model to estimated phylogenetic distance with multiple variable regression.
Evo Devo
Evo Devo is another rescuing device in of itself to explain away contradicting data between molecular biology (DNA and proteins) and paleontology (Darwin’s Tree).
Consider eyes for a moment. Humans and other vertebrates have camera like eyes with a single lens. Arthropods see through compound eyes. Octopuses and squids, not related to humans, have the camera-like lens. But the octopuses and squids close relatives’ clams and scallops have three types of eyes: camera, compound, and mirror type.
Since the evidence doesn’t coincide with evolution, evo-devo to the rescue. Since all animals share the same genetic material, it came from one sophisticated common ancestor with all the tools necessary in building different eye types. Genes just waiting for millions of years to be developed, although should have been weeded out by the other law of evolution: natural selection. But, there is another ad-hoc explanation for that as well called conserved sequence. When laws are broken, just make another one; just as long it doesn’t falsify evolution.
Principle of Gradualism
It’s a law except when it isn’t. Again, another unobservable ad-hoc rescuing device called Punctuated Equilibrium does the job. It explains away the missing links in the fossil record.
Evolutionary Economics
Why humans cannot evolve wings” – But see evo-devo above. We have the same genetic material to do so. But of course some land-dwelling mammals decided to evolve into sea-dwelling mammals via random mutations and natural selection, violating the law of evolutionary economics:
“To make this transition, whales had to overcome a number of obstacles. First of all, they had to contend with reduced access to breathable air. This led to a number of remarkable adaptations. The whale's "nose" moved from the face to the top of the head. This blowhole makes it easy for whales to breathe in air without fully surfacing. Instead, a whale swims near the surface, arches its body so its back briefly emerges and then flexes its tail, propelling it quickly to lower depths.”
Random mutation resulted in at least one whale whose genetic information placed its "nose" farther back on its head.
The whales with this mutation were more suited to the sea environment (where the food was) than "normal" whales, so they thrived and reproduced, passing on this genetic mutation to their offspring: Natural selection "chose" this trait as favorable.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/e ... ution6.htm
Surely if whales could do this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... tus_BW.jpg
and evolve into this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... don_BW.jpg
I’m sure humans could also develop wings. Maybe not feathers, but perhaps wings like a bat since we are mammals and have the genetic material (evo-devo) to do so.
Punctuated Equilibrium
“Why don’t we see constant changes”? This was a rescuing device for the lack of gradual Darwinian evolution found in the fossil record. This lack of evidence is the actual evidence to prove evolution. Evolution is slow and gradual except when it isn’t.
Punctuated Equilibrium happens when natural selection isn’t.
“A long-standing debate in evolutionary biology concerns whether species diverge gradually through time or by punctuational episodes at the time of speciation. We found that approximately 22% of substitutional changes at the DNA level can be attributed to punctuational evolution, and the remainder accumulates from background gradual divergence. Punctuational effects occur at more than twice the rate in plants and fungi than in animals, but the proportion of total divergence attributable to punctuational change does not vary among these groups. Punctuational changes cause departures from a clock-like tempo of evolution, suggesting that they should be accounted for in deriving dates from phylogenies. Punctuational episodes of evolution may play a larger role in promoting evolutionary divergence than has previously been appreciated.”
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/314/5796/119.abstract
“For some biologists, “punctuated equilibrium” is a radical idea. The term was coined in the 1970s to describe an uneven pace of evolution in the fossil record. But because it posits that evolution happens in bursts, punctuated equilibrium goes against the notion that evolution inches forward in tiny steps guided by natural selection. Now evolutionary biologists have shown that evolution in the genome also has fast and slow speeds, and that natural selection isn’t always governing genetic change.”
http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/20 ... ato-rhythm
Since both the fossil record (ad-hoc incompleteness) and genes (ad hoc evo-devo) don’t match gradualism (ad hoc punctuated equilibrium), then force direct observations into evolution-only fables to make it appear factual.
Natural Selection
“How did animals know what they needed to evolve?”
Natural selection is a conservative process. (Edward Blyth and William Paley) It either maintains what exists or gets rid of it. It cannot generate new organs and new genetic information. There is no dispute among evolutionists or creationists about natural selection.
Biodiversity
“Evolution says everything gets bigger and better”
Biodiversity is a huge variation of genes within its species. There is no dispute among evolutionists or creationists about biodiversity.
Dollos Law of Irreversibility
“It’s not evolution; it’s de-evolution”.
It’s irreversible except when it is reversible.
Genetic study of house dust mites demonstrates reversible evolution:
"In evolutionary biology, Dollo's law states that evolution is unidirectional and irreversible. But this "law" is not universally accepted and is the topic of heated debate among biologists. Now a research team has used a large-scale genetic study of the lowly house dust mite to uncover an example of reversible evolution that appears to violate Dollo's law.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 093424.htm
You might as well let AronRa know to update his “facts” and “laws” of evolution.
Evolution is a flexible term and can adapt to anything. It adapts by concocting terms that attempts to explain that UNOBSERVED event, such as convergence, analogous, atavism, incompleteness, conserved trait, trait replacement, trait loss, co-option, neo-lamarkism, concerted evolution, etc. All of these terms are not observable, but uses them to explain away contradicting evidence to a theory. The terms are rescuing devices (ad hoc explanations) that would save a theory from being falsified
If science was a newspaper, evolution would be the funnies!
Rhed said:Why humans cannot evolve wings” – But see evo-devo above. We have the same genetic material to do so. But of course some land-dwelling mammals decided to evolve into sea-dwelling mammals via random mutations and natural selection, violating the law of evolutionary economics:
“To make this transition, whales had to overcome a number of obstacles. First of all, they had to contend with reduced access to breathable air. This led to a number of remarkable adaptations. The whale's "nose" moved from the face to the top of the head. This blowhole makes it easy for whales to breathe in air without fully surfacing. Instead, a whale swims near the surface, arches its body so its back briefly emerges and then flexes its tail, propelling it quickly to lower depths.”
Random mutation resulted in at least one whale whose genetic information placed its "nose" farther back on its head.
The whales with this mutation were more suited to the sea environment (where the food was) than "normal" whales, so they thrived and reproduced, passing on this genetic mutation to their offspring: Natural selection "chose" this trait as favorable.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/e ... ution6.htm
Surely if whales could do this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... tus_BW.jpg
and evolve into this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... don_BW.jpg
I’m sure humans could also develop wings. Maybe not feathers, but perhaps wings like a bat since we are mammals and have the genetic material (evo-devo) to do so.
Inferno said:You don't have the first clue of how evolution works, do you? Humans certainly don't have the "genetic material" to evolve wings where did you get that idea? From bats or what? Nonsense, they clearly evolved wings inside the split of Scrotifera: Chiroptera with wings on the one hand, Fereuungulate without on the other hand.
The quote about whale evolution doesn't really make sense in this discussion. Are you agreeing that whales did evolve from land dwelling mammals? Because everything in that quote agrees with me.
But as explained, humans certainly don't have the "material" to develop wings. You simply don't understand evo-devo.
Now could we evolve wings? Not with feathers. Without them? More likely, but the chances are still abysmally small. What we could have is our arms growing skin... but to what purpose? We're far too heavy to lift off and have far too little muscle mass to sustain flight even for short distances.
Rhed said:Your reasoning sounds more like an IDists! :shock:
Rhed said:Not sure why you say that I don't know how evolution works?
decided to evolve
It is Intelligent Design which is basically an alternative to Creationismtuxbox said:I Binged it and looked in my dictionary and could not find a definition
surreptitious57 said:It is Intelligent Design which is basically an alternative to Creationismtuxbox said:I Binged it and looked in my dictionary and could not find a definition
Few (if any) would "believe" this, but it is not impossible given enough time and favourable forces of nature. Perhaps your disbelief is due to a perspective that highly adapted land animals would never revert to the oceans, but would you concede that animals such as tree frogs, for example, might be able to revert to fresh water amphibians and later salt water?Rhed said:Rhed said:Why on earth would you believe a sea-dwelling creature would evolve into a land-dwelling creature and then get home sick and evolve back to a sea-dwelling creature again.
Your reasoning sounds more like an IDists! :shock:
Rhed said:Why on earth would you believe a sea-dwelling creature would evolve into a land-dwelling creature and then get home sick and evolve back to a sea-dwelling creature again.
Your reasoning sounds more like an IDists! :shock:
red said:Few (if any) would "believe" this, but it is not impossible given enough time and favourable forces of nature. Perhaps your disbelief is due to a perspective that highly adapted land animals would never revert to the oceans, but would you concede that animals such as tree frogs, for example, might be able to revert to fresh water amphibians and later salt water?
Oh, so you have changed your mind............Rhed said:red said:Few (if any) would "believe" this, but it is not impossible given enough time and favourable forces of nature. Perhaps your disbelief is due to a perspective that highly adapted land animals would never revert to the oceans, but would you concede that animals such as tree frogs, for example, might be able to revert to fresh water amphibians and later salt water?
Of course. Most if not all of population genetics is NOT in dispute; i.e. gene flow, drift, deleterious mutations, beneficial mutations, natural selection, etc. Our DNA is amazingly complex and sophisticated and still considered a black box. The DNA code and among other codes in your body are designed.
The above aside, what gives cause for a designer to use old building blocks rather than start with a clean slate in designing new bodies?Rhed said:Why on earth would you believe a sea-dwelling creature would evolve into a land-dwelling creature and then get home sick and evolve back to a sea-dwelling creature again.
Your reasoning sounds more like an IDists! :shock:
red said:The above aside, what gives cause for a designer to use old building blocks rather than start with a clean slate in designing new bodies?
Perhaps your imagined designer wears the emperor's new clothes and only you are seeing them.
Rhed said:Of course. Most if not all of population genetics is NOT in dispute; i.e. gene flow, drift, deleterious mutations, beneficial mutations, natural selection, etc. Our DNA is amazingly complex and sophisticated and still considered a black box. The DNA code and among other codes in your body are designed.
red said:Oh, so you have changed your mind............
We must have different Bibles.Rhed said:Not sure how using old building blocks debunks a designer. God in the Bible created life only once including the code in all life to reproduce and populate the earth naturally. We are all slowly de-evolving due to genetic entropy.
How yeast doubled its genome—by mating between speciesRhed said:Not sure how using old building blocks debunks a designer. God in the Bible created life only once including the code in all life to reproduce and populate the earth naturally. We are all slowly de-evolving due to genetic entropy.red said:The above aside, what gives cause for a designer to use old building blocks rather than start with a clean slate in designing new bodies?
Perhaps your imagined designer wears the emperor's new clothes and only you are seeing them.
Mother Nature, or naturalistic evolution, doesn't correct errors. Mother Nature does not conserve traits for just-in-case scenarios. Naturalistic evolution should create store-houses in the genome. It doesn't know why to evolve wings to fly, or flippers to swim, or eyes to see or ears to hear. These are all hallmarks of design; not random unguided mutations. Perhaps your imagined unguided random theory of evolution wears the emperor's new clothes.