Denial of evolution III

[786]

but the point is, how do we declare what is a defect?

is a bird beak a defect? i dont know, it could be. would the bird be better off without a beak? i would assume so but i cannot say for sure.

Yeah... true... that is exactly what I'm wondering... how will scientists figure it out if they were given a fossil- they would probably not see it is as defect, how do you tell?, but a specie or something..... this is interesting... We'll just let the fossil interpreters make up a story that works

Peace be unto you

 

[stereologist]

LOL!!!

Natural Selection selects non-randomly the randomness that exists due to mutation, genetic drift and so on .... That is why, as Dawkins says, Evolution is not completed a chance thing.... Natural Selection is non-random..... Godly Selection is likewise non-random selecting on the randomness of the other mechanisms.

Does it make sense now?

No it does not make sense. Furthermore, you are making it clear that you misunderstand natural selection. Well in addition to the other mistakes others have pointed out.

 

[786]

No it does not make sense. Furthermore, you are making it clear that you misunderstand natural selection. Well in addition to the other mistakes others have pointed out.

Are you saying Natural Selection is random?

Peace be unto you

 

[iceaura]

Evolutionary theory- all mutations are random
Theohomolution- the mutations for the humans are non-random

In your theory you stated that the evidence was the same - so the mutations would be indistinguishable from the mutations of the standard theory, and therefore random or not depending on what the standard theory predicts (random is not required, btw). No difference. You have merely named the "cause" of the random mutations, to suit yourself - you called it "God".

Evolutionary theory- The randomness is selected by the natural process of Natural Selection

Evolution by Godly Selection- The randomness is selected by a supernatural force

What are you talking about? Do you know?

Your understanding of how Humans came about, are they special or not, is evolution due to natural process or a supernatural process.... The understanding between this is completely different!

You have yet to propose a supernatural process, and show how it "interprets" the evidence. Keep in mind that naming your supernatural process - God or Bob or whatever - does not describe it, or show how it "interprets" the evidence.

By the way the theory that evolution occurred by 'gradual' changes is practically dead- punctuated equilibrium is the way to go- so the theory continues

Punctuated equilibrium is a variation - an important refinement, an improvement on conventional assumptions - of standard Darwinian evolutionary theory. All the evolutionary changes in the "punctuated" phase are standard Darwinian - gradual, step by step, by the various standard mechanisms.

Natural Selection selects non-randomly the randomness that exists due to mutation, genetic drift and so on .... That is why, as Dawkins says, Evolution is not completed a chance thing.... Natural Selection is non-random..... Godly Selection is likewise non-random selecting on the randomness of the other mechanisms.

Does it make sense now?

No, it doesn't make sense. You are flipping around between random and selected in an apparent state of deep confusion regarding the meaning of the word "random", and you seem to believe that naming something (Godly Selection) provides information about it.

You are also beginning to write with little ellipses connecting otherwise unconnected and scattered assertions of varying sense. That is a common characteristic of the nutcase poster on these forums, and had you exhibited it from the beginning, my responses would have been much shorter if any.

Shows the problem scientists face when dealing with the fossil record because clearly if it is a fatal defect then the organism probably won't survive to reproduce- and so couldn't act as an intermediate/ancestor for a future specie. But how will scientist know this?

Do you actually believe the pros in the field never thought of that? Are you actually puzzled by these "questions" you keep asking, and if so where in hell did you manage to take 12 university level classes relevant to this topic without learning anything about it?

By the way they did teach Punctuated Equilibrium in the Evolution Systematic class at UW- that's the first place I heard it.

Did you actually take that class, and if so what was its real name?

But it also could be born dead, and would still be in the fossil record.

Not as an adult animal.

 

[786]

In your theory you stated that the evidence was the same - so the mutations would be indistinguishable from the mutations of the standard theory, and therefore random or not depending on what the standard theory predicts (random is not required, btw). No difference. You have merely named the "cause" of the random mutations, to suit yourself - you called it "God".

And what is interpretation?

What are you talking about? Do you know?

Yes... Natural Selection is a non-random process that acts on by selecting variation presented by the random mechanisms of mutation and genetic drift.


Godly Selection- is a non-random that acts on by selecting the variation presented by the random mechanisms of mutation and genetic drift.

You have yet to propose a supernatural process, and show how it "interprets" the evidence. Keep in mind that naming your supernatural process - God or Bob or whatever - does not describe it, or show how it "interprets" the evidence.

Hello.... Can you prove 'natural selection'? It is an assumption that what is happening is by something natural... Godly Selection is using the assumption that the process is controlled by someone....I already said the assumptions are different.

Punctuated equilibrium is a variation - an important refinement, an improvement on conventional assumptions - of standard Darwinian evolutionary theory. All the evolutionary changes in the "punctuated" phase are standard Darwinian - gradual, step by step, by the various standard mechanisms.

Yes conventional assumptions.... keyword here. And the point was that it isn't the same type of 'gradualness' that is often associated with the theory.

No, it doesn't make sense. You are flipping around between random and selected in an apparent state of deep confusion regarding the meaning of the word "random", and you seem to believe that naming something (Godly Selection) provides information about it.

Ahhh..... Helllooooo..... This is 2 separate mechanisms! One random the other non-random..... Helllooo.......... Mutations are random and Natural Selection is non-random..... Helloooo......... Mutations are random and Godly Selection is non-random..... Helloooo......... Does the assumption that it is naturally selected describe it anymore than saying it was selected by someone?......

You are also beginning to write with little ellipses connecting otherwise unconnected and scattered assertions of varying sense. That is a common characteristic of the nutcase poster on these forums, and had you exhibited it from the beginning, my responses would have been much shorter if any.

Like above right

Do you actually believe the pros in the field never thought of that? Are you actually puzzled by these "questions" you keep asking, and if so where in hell did you manage to take 12 university level classes relevant to this topic without learning anything about it?

My field is Physiology and not Anthropology or Archeology--- unless you mean that all science are related to fossils? 'Pros'? Did they always exist? Or did they travel back in time and had the hidden knowledge of fossils? Why should I trust them? Do they have a time machine which they use to find out if something was a defect or not? :shrug:

Did you actually take that class, and if so what was its real name?

Yes I did, and my mistake the name is Foundations in 'Evolution and Systematics' -- here is a description of it: Biology 354 (top one) http://www.washington.edu/students/crscat/biology.html#biol354

Peace be unto you

 

[iceaura]

Does the assumption that it is naturally selected describe it anymore than saying it was selected by someone?

As long as the "someone's" process remains unknown, yes. We can, for example, list the various mechanisms and compare their explanatory power - genetic drift vs sexual selection, disease vs predation, etc.

Hello.... Can you prove 'natural selection'? It is an assumption that what is happening is by something natural... Godly Selection is using the assumption that the process is controlled by someone....I already said the assumptions are different.

Sounds good. Now, the question was: about that process that you are assuming is controlled by "someone", and matches the results of the proposed natural selection exactly, being an "interpretation" of exactly the same data - what is that process?

And the point was that it isn't the same type of 'gradualness' that is often associated with the theory.

It involves exactly the same mechanisms and processes as are standard in Darwinian theory. So the same type of "gradualness", if you meant anything in particular by that.

"Do you actually believe the pros in the field never thought of that?"
- - -
'Pros'? Did they always exist? Or did they travel back in time and had the hidden knowledge of fossils? Why should I trust them? Do they have a time machine which they use to find out if something was a defect or not?

Oh man.

OK, I think I've had enough. Anyone else who wants to take it from here is welcome to my line.

 

[wsionynw]

One other thing is that when, a system for a leg for example, you need heart, lungs, kidneys , veins, nerves, blood, and all connected to the brain. What came first, in this system? You need the whole system at the same time for any of it to be useful. And how did evolution know what was needed to make working legs? Not only but the bones have to fit other bones, but not touch each other, but use other tissue to connect all of this. When your done it is not just some, awkward leg , it could be the legs of a cat. How did the brain get all the gaits of movement for the animals so that eyes , muscles, brain can move like that of a cat.? Science can't demonstrate this even in a lab.
The reason we don't see any of this is that it is impossible. Without creation to make it correct in the first place, there would not be anything.

Oh dear...Hay, the information you seek is out there if you care to look it up:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ancestors-T...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256806110&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Origin-Spec...=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256806146&sr=1-5
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Greatest-Sh...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256806216&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-D...=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256806216&sr=1-8

 

[(Q)]

Dinosaurs have nothing to do with my religion...

Reality has nothing to do with your religion, but that's beside the point. You'll need to seriously reconsider your cults doctrines if you begin to find evidence that contradicts it.

Or, will you simply ignore the evidence in favor of your cult?

 

[(Q)]

Oh dear...Hay, the information you seek is out there if you care to look it up:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ancestors-T...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256806110&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Origin-Spec...=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256806146&sr=1-5
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Greatest-Sh...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256806216&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-D...=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256806216&sr=1-8

Guaranteed, he won't look anything up.

 

[(Q)]

No, it doesn't make sense. You are flipping around between random and selected in an apparent state of deep confusion regarding the meaning of the word "random", and you seem to believe that naming something (Godly Selection) provides information about it.

You are also beginning to write with little ellipses connecting otherwise unconnected and scattered assertions of varying sense. That is a common characteristic of the nutcase poster on these forums, and had you exhibited it from the beginning, my responses would have been much shorter if any.

Do you actually believe the pros in the field never thought of that? Are you actually puzzled by these "questions" you keep asking, and if so where in hell did you manage to take 12 university level classes relevant to this topic without learning anything about it? Did you actually take that class, and if so what was its real name?

My field is Physiology and not Anthropology or Archeology

Why is it we have Muslims here who make claims of being scientists or are studying the sciences, but never seem to know anything about the fields they represent and do little more than spout faith based regurgitated nonsense?

 

[Ophiolite]

If science has continiously changes its theory so can a different explanation be changed. In essence there are other alternatives always. If all of you have been taught to accept the simplest explanation that fits the data you're going to have a consensus regardless of what the other explanation is. So the mechanism of consensus is built-in, not because it really has been such.

Fascinating. Do you realise that you are taking the simplest (and most simplistic) explanation of how science works? What you are describing is not reality.

The preference is to take the simplest explanation, but many researchers will see flaws - real, or imagined - in this and will pursue alternatives that may well be more complex. Often this will prove to be a blind alley, but sometimes this alternative, more complex explanation emerges victorious.

It is sensible to take the simplest explanation, since experience has shown this oftne proves to be the case. However, researchers take this simplest epxlanation as being provisional - as are all findings in science. It is understood that it is likely to amended, so that it increase in complexity, or even abandoned, but this will be on the basis of evidence, not supposition.

 

[(Q)]

OK, I think I've had enough. Anyone else who wants to take it from here is welcome to my line.

Nice try, ice. Too bad it's all wasted on a cult nutter.

 

[spidergoat]

Oh okay... the pattern can be attributed to something other than evolution too but anyways about the 'ape-like' fossils-

The disingenuous nature of creationists is amazing. First they demand that if evolution were true, we should see intermediary species between apes and humans. Then, we find intermediary species with ape and human characteristics, and they say, "well, that could be something else". No, sorry. If you have another theory other than magic, I'll be happy to hear it, but until then, evolution has yet another example of supporting evidence.


(I'm waiting with anticipation your expert opinion on australopithecine physiology).

 

[786]

The disingenuous nature of creationists is amazing. First they demand that if evolution were true, we should see intermediary species between apes and humans. Then, we find intermediary species with ape and human characteristics, and they say, "well, that could be something else". No, sorry. If you have another theory other than magic, I'll be happy to hear it, but until then, evolution has yet another example of supporting evidence.

You did forget to comment on the question that almost all the characteristics of Human could potentially have arose independently many times- if this were true then calling them 'intermediates' between Apes and Humans is just a self-fulfilling prophecy.... Do they have proof that this did not occur?

And as for them being immediate- I highly doubt it- Scientists have a habit of making shit up to suit their needs- just as those imaginary images they publish of Ardi and so forth.. to make it seem like they were 'almost' human but still apes--- Did they find that Ardi was fulling covered with hair? Where are the fossils of them being fully covered with hair- if not where did these pictures come from- oh we just imagined they would look like this because they are intermediates- this is fucking bullshit.... they are purposefully fitting shit and making things up to suit their tale of Evolution.

Peace be unto you

 

[(Q)]

Scientists have a habit of making shit up to suit their needs- they are purposefully fitting shit and making things up to suit their tale of Evolution.

That would demonstrate you're not studying science at all and are just here to drive the Islamic propaganda machine with lies and deceit, just like the other Muslims here.

Peace be unto you

Phuk Yu

 

[spidergoat]

You did forget to comment on the question that almost all the characteristics of Human could potentially have arose independently many times- if this were true then calling them 'intermediates' between Apes and Humans is just a self-fulfilling prophecy.... Do they have proof that this did not occur?

And as for them being immediate- I highly doubt it- Scientists have a habit of making shit up to suit their needs- just as those imaginary images they publish of Ardi and so forth.. to make it seem like they were 'almost' human but still apes--- Did they find that Ardi was fulling covered with hair? Where are the fossils of them being fully covered with hair- if not where did these pictures come from- oh we just imagined they would look like this because they are intermediates- this is fucking bullshit.... they are purposefully fitting shit and making things up to suit their tale of Evolution.

Peace be unto you

Even if they evolved relatively independently, it's still proof that evolution was working with hominid forms, and that one of those forms led to you and me. The physical similarities of some of these forms to modern humans is undeniable. By the way, nothing in evolution is truly independent, there was a common ancestor of all these species, you just have to go back far enough.

 

[786]

As long as the "someone's" process remains unknown, yes. We can, for example, list the various mechanisms and compare their explanatory power - genetic drift vs sexual selection, disease vs predation, etc.
Sounds good. Now, the question was: about that process that you are assuming is controlled by "someone", and matches the results of the proposed natural selection exactly, being an "interpretation" of exactly the same data - what is that process?

Hmm.... I think the question is pretty idiotic but anyways..... I said it is EXACTLY THE SAME as Natural Selection! Difference is someone is doing it except of nature.. .. Why don't you explain to us how Natural Selection works? Please I'm all ears...

It involves exactly the same mechanisms and processes as are standard in Darwinian theory. So the same type of "gradualness", if you meant anything in particular by that.

I've provided the quote from the scientists who proposed it, and they realize it is NOT the same type of 'gradualness' - Because something that was supposed to take 1000 years happened in 2 years for example- the rate of this 'slow' process that is associated with Darwin is much different in punctuated equillibrium.

Oh man.

OK, I think I've had enough. Anyone else who wants to take it from here is welcome to my line.

You are one of those fools who prefer to be spoon-fed by the 'pros' and get brainwashed without questioning it. How do they determine a major change to be defect or not? You can find me the sources and we'll see.... The truth is they can interpret the fossils the way they want so that it fits the Evolutionary Theory- secondly yes they do have certain tools perhaps say things quite accurately- but saying something is a defect or a new specie is NOT one of those things.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Even if they evolved relatively independently, it's still proof that evolution was working with hominid forms, and that one of those forms led to you and me. The physical similarities of some of these forms to modern humans is undeniable. By the way, nothing in evolution is truly independent, there was a common ancestor of all these species, you just have to go back far enough.

No the only form that would lead to us would be our ancestor- a sister group is NOT your ancestor! In order for something to be an INTERMEDIATE they HAVE to be YOUR ANCESTOR (at some point)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You understand how you connect the dots?

Before - Intermediate- After

If the specie is totally a sister group it is simply Before- After
And that 'ape-human' is SEPARATE!!!!

You need to learn how to connect the dots!

Peace be unto you

 

[(Q)]

Why don't you explain to us how Natural Selection works? Please I'm all ears...

Aren't YOU the biology major?

You are one of those fools who prefer to be spoon-fed by the 'pros' and get brainwashed without questioning it.

Kind of like Islamic indoctrination? You would never question your god or your cult doctrines in the fact of facts. Brainwashed.

 

[786]

Fascinating. Do you realise that you are taking the simplest (and most simplistic) explanation of how science works? What you are describing is not reality.

The preference is to take the simplest explanation, but many researchers will see flaws - real, or imagined - in this and will pursue alternatives that may well be more complex. Often this will prove to be a blind alley, but sometimes this alternative, more complex explanation emerges victorious.

It is sensible to take the simplest explanation, since experience has shown this oftne proves to be the case. However, researchers take this simplest epxlanation as being provisional - as are all findings in science. It is understood that it is likely to amended, so that it increase in complexity, or even abandoned, but this will be on the basis of evidence, not supposition.

I agree but my argument is that there are other ways to understand the world so the assumptions, and methods used by science do not have to be used in other disciples- I already said you don't have to call them science because if they use the same assumptions then that is science- So non-science using a different assumption explaning everything that fits the data can be used as a ground to deny science- of course NOT reject it.

Peace be unto you