Denial of Evolution V
- Thread starter Hercules Rockefeller
- Start date
- Status
leopold said:
You are ascribing the fossil record entirely to biology, without mentioning the earth science involved. Deposition was interrupted.
The succession of fossil forms is associated with the succession of stratigraphic geological deposits, which accumulate for millions of years, separated by discontinuous transitions. The discontinuities reflect periods during which sediments failed to accumulate that typically last 50,000 to 100,000 years or longer. Moreover, a time span of 100,000 years encompasses one million generations of insects such as Drosophila, or snails such as Cerion (Gould’s subject of empirical research), and tens of thousands of generations of fish, birds, or mammals. Speciation events and morphological changes deployed during thousands of generations may occur by the slow processes of gene substitution that are familiar to the population geneticist. Speciation typically involves a few thousand generations, although it can occur considerably faster. The well-documented evolutionary diversification of Drosophila and land snails in Hawaii, the largest and most recent island of the archipelago, shows that scores of sequential speciation events and extensive morphological diversification can occur in much less than one million years, by the gradual processes of gene substitution.
FRANCISCO J. AYALA, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory: on Stephen Jay Gould’s Monumental Masterpiece, Theology and Science, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2005, p.99
This is lifted from the TalkOrigins formulation of the retort to the Creationist claim that no transitional fossils exist. It's not relevant to me.
The Silurian brachiopod Eocoelia has transitional fossils.
gould, as a paleontologist, would be well aware of "earth science".
earth science isn't mentioned as a factor in goulds biography.
plus, we have this from "science":
"The absence of transitional forms be- tween established species has tradition- ally been explained as a fault of an im- perfect record, an argument first advanced by Charles Darwin. The accumulation of sediments and the entrapment and fossilization of animal bones is, at best, a capricious process: as a result, geologists are familiar with the difficulties of reconstructing past events. According to the traditional position, therefore, if sedimentation and fossilization did indeed encapsulate a complete record of prehistory, then it would reveal the postulated transitional organisms. But it isn't and it doesn't."
-Science, vol. 210 no. 4472 pp: 883-887
it IS of relevance to you.
you implied transitional fossils meant at the species level.
the quote says you are wrong.
talkorigins, the one you said wasn't relevant, says:
However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found.
leopold:
Neither is his interest in baseball. So what?
This agrees with what Aqueous Id posted.
So, I take it you agree with him now. Good.
How so?
And again this agrees with what Aqueous Id posted.
Look at the diagram. Notice how all those fossil lineages are different species? And see how there were changes from one species to the next, through a series of transitional species?
As you say, we can't prove direct descent here, but you agree that there would be no way to do that anyway.
You can see the obvious similarity between the 5 species shown in the diagram, can't you?
Tell me: which of the species are NOT transitional species, and why.
Neither is his interest in baseball. So what?
This agrees with what Aqueous Id posted.
So, I take it you agree with him now. Good.
How so?
And again this agrees with what Aqueous Id posted.
Look at the diagram. Notice how all those fossil lineages are different species? And see how there were changes from one species to the next, through a series of transitional species?
As you say, we can't prove direct descent here, but you agree that there would be no way to do that anyway.
You can see the obvious similarity between the 5 species shown in the diagram, can't you?
Tell me: which of the species are NOT transitional species, and why.
Okay, I can confirm that you have continually misrepresented Francisco Ayala (and Gould, and others) by taking their quotations out-of-context. You continue to do this even after your errors have been demonstrated to you numerous times. This makes the possibly the worst disingenuous, intellectually dishonest troll on Sciforums.
You’ve been trolling ever since you returned from your one month ban. Examples:
So, even after I previously banned you for making claims about Gould despite admitting that you know nothing about him or his work, you’re doing it again?
A typical example of your disingenuous debating tactics as further in the same post you make concrete definitive claims:
And it goes on:
Deliberate wilful ignorance as the nature of the fossil record has been explained to you numerous times.
Trolling.
Trolling. A stupid strawman representation of evolution that you know is wrong becausae we have explained it to you, yet you still do it.
Trolling. Multiple people have addressed your so-called ‘sources’. You choose to ignore this and blindly re-state a request to address your links.
And that’s the final straw!
I've been over this with you multiple times. That article doesn’t say what you think it says. But, as per usual, you ignore everything that is said and choose to troll.I’m not expending any more effort on you. You've learnt nothing from your recent month-long ban, and you're back behaving exactly the same way. I’m banning you for another month for trolling, and I will petition the Administration to make the next ban after that permanent.
It has to due with the mind/brain and willpower. These can alter the social and physical environments, thereby redefining evolutionary selection so it can differ from natural selection; artificial selection.
The prehumans could not departed from natural selection which explains their cultural simplicity. When civilization forms, the human mind had evolved to where it could depart from natural selection.
Genesis symbolizes the transition point between the natural prehuman and the new human who had the ability to depart from natural selection in favor of artificial selection.
For example, shifting a lot of resources to the sick is not natural, although it is ethical. This departure from natural selection is part of the cultural mind and has no precedent in nature. This change all began with subjective knowledge of good and evil. This would define the what will and will not be included in the cultural environment, thereby defining the parameters for artificial selection.
This discussion topic, which amounts to evolution versus creation, is a good example of intellectual environment, established by rules of good (right) and evil (wrong), will set the conditions for artificial selection.
The path of artificial selection, analogous to natural selection, is defined by the rules. If you fail to follow the rules don't expect selection. The bible says, the moment you eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall surely die". What dies is natural selection in favor of artificial selection.
There was a point when natural selection, which had been the path of evolution, died for humans. In its place arose artificial selection based on cultural knowledge of good and evil, which defined the parameters for selection. This method is unreliable, since people will set the rules to make it easier for themselves. Lines of descendancy from kings does not mean the best leader but created a way to artificially keep it in the family.
If you look at modern cultural leadership, natural selection would pick the best people for the job based on ability; big buck. Instead we use artificial selection based on lawyers and marketeers spinning the truth for political advantage. What you get is artificial selection. Once in office they try to change culture in their own image to maintain selection.
Genesis tells us about when this all began. God would symbolized a path of cultural wisdom; spirit, that would allow natural selection to continue but in light of free will and choice; tree of life. But that is not what happened, historically. Instead the bible documents early "neo-human" evolution based on artificial selection.
Genesis is not about the evolution of dinosaurs and bacteria but the point of departure from this long path of natural selection. Adam and Eve represent free will appearing and then shifting to the artificial.
The path of artificial selection, analogous to natural selection, is defined by the rules. If you fail to follow the rules don't expect selection. The bible says, the moment you eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall surely die". What dies is natural selection in favor of artificial selection.
There was a point when natural selection, which had been the path of evolution, died for humans. In its place arose artificial selection based on cultural knowledge of good and evil, which defined the parameters for selection. This method is unreliable, since people will set the rules to make it easier for themselves. Lines of descendancy from kings does not mean the best leader but created a way to artificially keep it in the family.
If you look at modern cultural leadership, natural selection would pick the best people for the job based on ability; big buck. Instead we use artificial selection based on lawyers and marketeers spinning the truth for political advantage. What you get is artificial selection. Once in office they try to change culture in their own image to maintain selection.
Genesis tells us about when this all began. God would symbolized a path of cultural wisdom; spirit, that would allow natural selection to continue but in light of free will and choice; tree of life. But that is not what happened, historically. Instead the bible documents early "neo-human" evolution based on artificial selection.
Genesis is not about the evolution of dinosaurs and bacteria but the point of departure from this long path of natural selection. Adam and Eve represent free will appearing and then shifting to the artificial.
No there wasn't.
As per the previous four Denial of Evolution threads (here, here, here and here), this fifth instalment is also a quarantine area for threads that blindly regurgipost and quote-mine all the usual creationist/evolution denialism stuff, such as (but not limited to):
-- scientists know that evolution is wrong, but are hiding that fact in order to retain their power;
-- evolution is just a theory;
-- Darwin recanted on his deathbed;
-- no one has seen a bacterium evolve into a fish;
-- there are no transitional fossils;
-- speciation has never been seen;
-- okay, speciation has been seen, but the creation of new Genuses has not;
....and everything else which is summarily smacked down by everyone who passed high school biology.
You made some good examples of clear crackpottery.
Do you have an algorithm to prove the emergence of chemicals to life?
Taken from recursion theory, you can add a chemical to a chemical and you still have a chemical for all n.
So, what step causes the collection of chemicals to all of a sudden emerge into life, which is clearly different from chemicals?
Before science there was a bible with the energy of evolutionary creation , see Genesis 1:1--- end
What science does is to enlighten how things are done and learn how thing function and as we learn. We apply the knowledge to make the fellow man to live better ( some )
We need an example of a living being which is not made of chemicals, to support that assertion.chinglu said:
The currently standard "algorithm", in your sense, thought the most likely candidate to have produced living beings from non-living assemblages of chemicals, is called "Darwinian Evolution". Check it out some time - its is a powerful and elegant theory.
DNA.
Except properties continue to accrete as you do that. And it accretes the property of replication as soon as it lands on the 4-codon helix. The rest is history. Self replication is so advantageous against just withering away, that all the recursion you can think of will simply strengthen the odds of survival for a given set of traits.
Or clearly the same if you're discussing biochemistry. The causes of arriving at DNA by random reactions can be addressed by grabbing a clump of dirt from the ground and doing a chemical assay. Why does it contain what it contains?
The "Suddenness" with which life appears is a relative term. On some scales, it's an inconceivably long time. Of course, games of chance have their own statistics for estimating the time at which an event will occur.
Clearly a fundamental principle in all of the natural world, as to causes, is randomness. Why are you you? Calculate the number of ova and spermatazoa from which you could have been formed. Why that pair? Clearly, gametes. But why that particular pair? And here you're back to the norm of nature, which is, that whatever is not deterministic is, by default, random.
Mod note: recidivist’s thinly veiled but obvious posts containing a bastardization of genetics and evolutionary science for the purpose of racism, and all associated replies, have been moved to a separate thread. That conversation will not proceed any further in B&G.
I am OK with that.
But, since science depends on a starting point and then must define the next logical position after any prior logical position, (Kleene Recursion theorem), the TOE must prove the emergence of chemicals into life in order to be viable.
So, I'm not here defending any religion, especially those that cannot prove their fundamental assertions.
You are not at all following what I am saying.
In the world of chemistry, no matter how many chemical operations you perform, the result is a chemical of some nature.
Now, that could be a complex collection of molecules which results.
Chemically, it is still a chemical.
Now, lets assume TOE is true and find the first place in the universe where life "emerged".
If science is valid, then it can produce a recipe or roadmap to reproduce the procedure for life's emergence.
Moreover, to be valid, science will need to explain why the total universe had only properties consistent with chemistry and physics and then suddenly, the universe emerged other properties that did not exist prior, "life".
That is the fundamental problem with the existence of life.
The dna is not an algorithm.
It is invalid without the cell.
The cell cannot exists without the dna and the dna cannot exist without the cell prior in terms of "creation".
And, randomness is not a solution to the problem.
Randomness is a human term confessing the lack of ability of calculation the problem.
If the universe is indeed random, then the fundamental forces do not exist.
But they do, hence there is order to the universe, else why study science?
This whole conversation is absurd.
Not only can we demonstrate self replicating molecules, but we can demonstrate self replicating molecules that evolve and mutate.
Self-Replicating Chemicals Evolve Into Lifelike Ecosystem
Most of these mutations went away quickly, but — sound familiar? —
some of the changes ended up being advantageous to the chemicals in replicating better. After 77 doublings of the chemicals, astounding changes had occurred in the molecular broth.
"All the original replicators went extinct and it was the new recombinants that took over," said Joyce. "There wasn’t one winner.
There was a whole cloud of winners, but there were three mutants that arose that pretty much dominated the population."
It turned out that while the scientist-designed enzymes were great at reproducing without competition, when you put them in the big soup mix, a new set of mutants emerged that were better at replicating within the system. It almost worked like an ecosystem, but with just straight chemistry.
Also worth a read:
First life: The search for the first replicator
Not only can we demonstrate self replicating molecules, but we can demonstrate self replicating molecules that evolve and mutate.
Self-Replicating Chemicals Evolve Into Lifelike Ecosystem
Most of these mutations went away quickly, but — sound familiar? —
some of the changes ended up being advantageous to the chemicals in replicating better. After 77 doublings of the chemicals, astounding changes had occurred in the molecular broth.
"All the original replicators went extinct and it was the new recombinants that took over," said Joyce. "There wasn’t one winner.
There was a whole cloud of winners, but there were three mutants that arose that pretty much dominated the population."
It turned out that while the scientist-designed enzymes were great at reproducing without competition, when you put them in the big soup mix, a new set of mutants emerged that were better at replicating within the system. It almost worked like an ecosystem, but with just straight chemistry.
Also worth a read:
First life: The search for the first replicator
Last edited:
Self replication has long been known for chemicals.
Now, tell me, after the "chemical" self replicated, did you have a chemical or something else?
That is an important question.
Try synthesizing an enzyme or protein from a gene and you'll find a veritable plethora of algorithms Nature has handed down.
Not "in the beginning". The cell wall evolved to nurture and protect the nucleus.
Says who?
And you mean "evolution". Cells evolved.
Sure it is. That's what one of the essential qualities of Brownian motion, which one of the essential processes affecting spontaneous precipitation of reactants out of solution.
You mean in cosmology? In biology, specifically in understanding evolution, it's a fundamental working principle. Why would you say otherwise?
But this is not a cosmology question, so how does it pertain to evolution of life?
Indeed all science must be thrown out if our only goal is to dismiss it through epistemics rather than to apply it in order to understand nature. Oh, wait, that's why we study science, isn't it.
And no, many scientific endeavors are specifically directed at understanding particular random processes.
- Status