Is evolution a fact?

[SpecialFrog]

Start with SpecialFrog's ones - I'm sure he'll refresh your memory if you can't remember.

I think I'm done with attempting actual discussion with Bernhard, though I may persist in posting the occasional snide comment.

And I'll talk to others in this thread.

For instance, Larry Moran has an article on the very quote Bernhard mentions above.

Unsurprisingly, the meat of the article is far less sensationalist than that one quote. All it is talking about is the effect of horizontal gene transfer on pre-eukaryotic inheritance.

But I'm willing to bet Bernhard didn't even read the New Scientist article itself, just the creationist misrepresentation of it.

 

[Visaki]

What is the point of fixating on Darwins tree of life? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Using it somehow as a point against (the theory of) evolution is like claiming that the problems Newtonian physics has with Mercury somehow is a point against Einsteinian relativity. In other words, silly.

This is a symptom of a problem many evo-denialists seem to have. They don't understand that science isn't the absolute truth, that science pregresses, making theorys more and more accurate (or dismissing them if they are proved false) and that there are no ultimate authorities in science. Absolute Truth, Everlasting Truth and the Ultimate Truth Authority are religious concepts, not scientific ones. The modern theory of evolution isn't Truth, it's the best explanation for observations. The current theory of evolution is not exactly the same as Darwins theory of evolution. Darwin wasn't right in everything, and the fact that he had something wrong doesn't mean that he had everything wrong.

Actually what Darwin thought about evolution can be dismissed wholesale these days without it affecting the modern theory of evolution one single bit. Sure he came up with the basic idea but that idea has been tested and retested, improved, modified, evidenced, modeled, added, subtracted, studied, challenged, examined and all around worked over so throughoutly that we don't need Darwin anymore. Although Darwin is important for theory of evolutions history, he is not that anymore and bringing him up in these kinds of discussions is little more than a red herring.

 

[australopithecus]

I'm going to be charitable and assume Bernie copying Dragan's posting style is just politeness and not trying to be a smart arse. That said, I shouldn't expect it to continue much longer.

 

[SpecialFrog]

It would be weird to live in a world where nuance didn't exist and the concept of approximations with varying degrees of accuracy was alien.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

As Dara O'Briain noted, "Science doesn't know everything - otherwise it would stop".

It's perfectly alright to use a rough analogy for a system, in this case a tree, whilst accepting that the most accurate model is, at the moment, a thicket.

Stick drawings of people are acceptable as a rough representation of such, whilst acknowledging that a anatomically correct model of a human is the most accurate.

Why can't you accept this simple difference?

The map is not the territory.

Now, address the points which a number of posters have made throughout this thread.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Collecemall]

I've suffered through dan dan and ACB. I have however found my limits.

 

[SpecialFrog]

I wonder how one gets their brain into such a state that they think that it is reasonable to call the statement "approximation can be useful" an unfounded assertion.

 

[Steelmage99]

PSA from Bernhard. The preceeding image is wrong, and its usefulness is an unfounded assertion.

 

[red]

PSA from Bernhard. The preceeding image is wrong, and its usefulness is an unfounded assertion.

Why do you have an image of 4-fingered hands either side of a screen?
I am confused as to how these are correct, except that perhaps it was merely illustrative?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

The need for (absolute) certainty in a sizeable portion of humanity is met by religions.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[australopithecus]

Apparently I can't use greetings and kindest regards... I'm in trouble again.. So I'll just say

Peace

I'll tell you this just the once; playing the cocky smart arse around me isn't advised. I've been doing it longer than you, I'm better at it and I can spot it a mile away. You've been cut an inordinent amount of slack here, don't push it.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Moving on....

Dragon glas.. Can you give me a model of the thicket you agree with?

Bernhard, I've already answered that question.

Are you ever going to address the salient points made by many posters throughout this thread?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

Moving on....

Dragon glas.. Can you give me a model of the thicket you agree with?

Bernhard, I've already answered that question.

Are you ever going to address the salient points made by many posters throughout this thread?

He's like a dog with a rock that he thinks is a bone.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Bernhard, you'll recall I liked to a article which described the "tree" as more of a thicket? You even referenced that article when you spoke about the thicket.

That's the thicket to which I'm referring.

Now, can you address the various points raised by all the posters which you've studiously avoided?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Objections in the form of a question... Is not a point.

If you ask me a question on "is evolution a fact" thread... That is not an objection. That's a question.

What point have you guys made? Like really?

Tree of life...evolution concept... Can't even bring a model.
Fossil record... Abandoned
Lucy... Abandoned
Ardi... Abandoned
Age of earth... Abandoned
Horse evolution... Abandoned.
Horizontal gene transfer..... Abandoned
Thicket... Abandoned
Tiktaalic... Abandoned
Darwin... Abandoned
Aron ra.... Abandoned
Whale evolution.... Abandoned
Science ... Abandoned.
Telomeric fusion... Abandoned.
Dawkins.... Abandoned

E pensando ti " evolution" mi sopagriunse uno Soave sonno.

Sweet is understanding what is and what is not possible

You haven't addressed any of these points other than to deny everything.

That's not the basis for a discussion.

Even now, you assert that these points were "abandoned" by us - which is a laughable claim.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Laughable sure. Prove me wrong

Give me a thicket you agree with.

I've already answered this question.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

Apparently pointing out that Bernhard's claims about a particular topic are wrong and him refusing to engage with the response counts as us abandoning the topic.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Bernhard, here are several maps of Toronto. Which one do you agree with?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Give me a thicket you agree with.

I've already answered this question.

Kindest regards,

James

If somebody can find where dragon glas brought a thicket model...that would be appreciated.

He asserts he has answered my question.

The question was... Can you bring a thicket model you agree with?

Nobody else should have to do this for you - you're a man, not a child.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Greetings,
Nobody else should have to do this for you - you're a man, not a child.

Kindest regards,

James

No, see, you answered his question. But he didn't like the answer. Which is the equivalent of no answer. Just like him refusing to engage rebuttals of his claims is us abandoning evidence.