Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

[Enoc]

There are still many things that the theory of evolution, and modern biological science in general, cannot explain.

Some of those things are:

1. Why some people (like me for example) experience severe burning pain at even a small burn or a knife cut while most normal people are (almost) completely immune to pain sensations.

2. Why some people (like me for example) have nausea and vomiting while most normal people almost never feel nausea and never vomit.

3. Evolution cannot explain consciousness. Evolution can't tell us what consciousness really is and why we even have it.

I hope that in the future evolution will be replaced by a better and more complete scientific theory, a theory which much more completely describes humans, life, the experience of pain and the nature of consciousness.

 

[Billy T]

... Some of those things are:
1. Why some people (like me for example) experience severe burning pain at even a small burn or a knife cut while most normal people are (almost) completely immune to pain sensations.
2. Why some people (like me for example) have nausea and vomiting while most normal people almost never feel nausea and never vomit.

3. Evolution cannot explain consciousness. Evolution can't tell us what consciousness really is and why we even have it.
I hope that in the future evolution will be replaced by a better and more complete scientific theory, a theory which much more completely describes humans, life, the experience of pain and the nature of consciousness.

How many kids do you have? If none, then you see evolution is in your case selecting against the mal-adapted variations.

On (3) ToE does not care about consciousness (or any thing) or try to "explain things" - It is a man-made concept that relates a lot of observation into a pattern, well confirmed by more observations. That is in general what science theories do: organize many observation into one frame work of understanding the observations as a patern and not just be unrelated random facts. The fact that some animals are conscious, seems to indicate (according to ToE) that consciousness is useful for reproduction. If you felt nothing when having sex, would you bother?

 

[billvon]

There are still many things that the theory of evolution, and modern biological science in general, cannot explain.
Some of those things are:
1. Why some people (like me for example) experience severe burning pain at even a small burn or a knife cut while most normal people are (almost) completely immune to pain sensations.
2. Why some people (like me for example) have nausea and vomiting while most normal people almost never feel nausea and never vomit.
3. Evolution cannot explain consciousness. Evolution can't tell us what consciousness really is and why we even have it.

The wave-particle duality of light cannot explain those things either. Doesn't mean that it's invalid.

(BTW most people are not almost completely immune to pain sensations, and most people vomit at some point in their lives.)

 

[iceaura]

1. Why some people (like me for example) experience severe burning pain at even a small burn or a knife cut while most normal people are (almost) completely immune to pain sensations.

2. Why some people (like me for example) have nausea and vomiting while most normal people almost never feel nausea and never vomit.

3. Evolution cannot explain consciousness. Evolution can't tell us what consciousness really is and why we even have it.

Those are all false statements. Most people feel considerable pain when burned or cut by knives, most people vomit many times during their lives, and there is no reason that explanations of consciousness cannot be found in some consequence of evolutionary theory - it's not impossible, but rather the most likely approach.

 

[leopold]

and to think, all i did was request to see the issue of science that shows where they admit of "misquoting" ayala,
instead of producing said issue, i get the bullshit posted above.

well, until then, NO, microevolution DOES NOT lead to macroevolution and SMALL CHANGES DO NOT ACCUMULATE.
the above was published in science by one of the editors of science.

read 'em and weep people.

so, are you gonna kill ME for it?

 

[billvon]

all i did was request to see the issue of science that shows where they admit of "misquoting" ayala,

Here's Ayala stating they misquoted Ayala. From a letter from Francisco Ayala to Richard Arrowsmith:
============================================
Dear Dr. Arrowsmith:

I don't know how Roger Lewin could have gotten in his notes the quotation he attributes to me. I presented a paper/lecture and spoke at various times from the floor, but I could not possibly have said (at least as a complete sentence) what Lewin attributes to me. In fact, I don't know what it means. How could small changes NOT accumulate! In any case, virtually all my evolutionary research papers evidence that small (genetic) changes do accumulate.

The paper that I presented at the conference reported by Lewin is virtually the same that I presented in 1982 in Cambridge, at a conference commemorating the 200th anniversary of Darwin's death. It deals with the claims of "punctuated equilibrium" and how microevolutionary change relates to macroevolution. (I provide experimental results showing how one can obtain in the laboratory, as a result of the accumulation of small genetic changes, morphological changes of the magnitude observed by paleontologists and presented as evidence of punctuated equilibrium.) The paper was published as part of the conference proceedings:

Ayala, F.J. 1983. Microevolution and macroevolution. In: D.S. Bendall, ed., Evolution from Molecules to Men (Cambridge University Press), pp. 387-402.

More accessible are two papers dealing with the same topic, written with my colleague G.L. Stebbins: Stebbins, G.L. and F.J. Ayala. 1981. Is a new evolutionary synthesis necessary? Science 213:967-971. (I quote from the abstract of the paper:

"Macroevolutionary processes are underlain by microevolutionary phenomena and are compatible with the synthetic theory of evolution." But, please, read the whole paper to get the wealth of results and ideas that we are discussing; and read also the following paper:

"Stebbins, G.L. and F.J. Ayala. 1985. The Evolution of Darwinism. Sci. American 253:72-82."

You may quote from this letter so long as you don't quote out of context or incomplete sentences.

Sincerely yours,
Francisco J. Ayala ​

===============

​

well, until then, NO, microevolution DOES NOT lead to macroevolution and SMALL CHANGES DO NOT ACCUMULATE.

The very man you claim supports you says quite clearly that small changes DO accumulate. And his own words win over your conspiracy theories.

Next subject?

 

[leopold]

sorry, NAIG wasn't/isn't the responsible party here, science is.
post the issue where NAIG or ayala contacted science.
this is all i want to see.
science trumps anything your personal website sources say bill.

 

[billvon]

science trumps anything your personal website sources say bill.

Actually the statement of the original author trumps any conspiracy theory you have imagined. Can't get a better source for what someone said than that person.

Per his statement your claims are baseless; he states quite clearly that small changes do accumulate. I know that is not what you wanted him to say, but it is reality.

 

[leopold]

Actually the statement of the original author trumps any conspiracy theory you have imagined.

where have i mentioned conspiracy?
it's what i have presented that leads YOU to that conclusion.
the mind balks at what it doesn't want to believe.

Can't get a better source for what someone said than that person.

you would actually take the word of an individual over that of a respected science source?

 

[leopold]

In other words, the conference participants were discussing the conclusions they had drawn from their studies of different types of data. The data itself was not the focus of this particular conference. Nevertheless, some data was presented, as Lewin notes.

yes, "some".
care to post what lewin said about the matter?

I don't get the impression that you, leopold, have any idea what scientists actually do in their day-to-day work.

and?
i know where to assign blame though.

You give every indication that you don't understand the scientific method.

uh, huh.

 

[paddoboy]

I think this is common among anti-science posters. They never have any actual interest in the facts and evidence they deny.

leopold stands out with one additional belief: that people are actively altering posts, documents, etc., just to obstruct him.

Our God Bothering, anti Evolutionary friend once tried to recruit me to his cause.

 

[billvon]

where have i mentioned conspiracy?

"something isn't right here bells, and it's downright nauseating."

you would actually take the word of an individual over that of a respected science source?

Yes - when that individual is the individual you are misquoting. In that case, he is right and you are wrong. It's a pretty simple concept in everything from science to law.

 

[leopold]

paddoboy,
correct.
and here is the recruitment poster:
re: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141223-For-the-alternative-theorists&p=3178121#post3178121

about 10:
one of the primary reasons that i'm a "god supporter" is because evolution IS NOT the cut and dried fact that most would like to believe.

i'm not saying evolution is outright false but i AM saying very little is actually known to be true about it.
the only REAL evidence is the ability of species to become different species.
you know, birds with bigger beaks and such.

comments?

oh my, the above leaves no doubt i was trying to "recruit" you !

 

[Billy T]

... the mind balks at what it doesn't want to believe. ...

True but you are rejecting well established facts so frequently and firmly without any attempt to discuss them with others, that the most reasonable explanation in your case is literally: "Absence of mind."

At least make an idiotic comment on the facts presented here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/denial-of-evolution-vii-2015.144083/page-17#post-3265839

Just to show you can understand facts other than only quote others retracted comments.

 

[billvon]

i'm not saying evolution is outright false but i AM saying very little is actually known to be true about it.
the only REAL evidence is the ability of species to become different species.
you know, birds with bigger beaks and such.
comments?

Here's a quick list of organisms that have speciated (split into new species) in the very short time we have been watching them:

Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Raphanobrassica
Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)
Madia citrigracilis
Brassica
Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)
Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)
Stephanomeira malheurensis
Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)
Fruit fly (Drosophila paulistorum)

That's over only a hundred years or so - and we've still seen such changes. Imagine the changes we'd see in a hundred million.

 

[leopold]

In that case, he is right and you are wrong. It's a pretty simple concept in everything from science to law.

then it should be no problem for science to admit their mistake.
ive seen no evidence that NAIG, scientific american, or ayala, ever contacted science.
science is responsible for it bill.

 

[billvon]

then it should be no problem for science to admit their mistake.

Agreed. And no problem if they don't.

 

[leopold]

True but you are rejecting well established facts so frequently and firmy without any attempt to discuss them with others, that the most reasonable is literally is: Absence of mind."

what "well established facts" am i rejecting?
i am not discussing evolution.
i am discussing ayala and his alleged misquote.
there is a reason science never corrected this, and i want to know why.

furthermore, i cannot help nor explain what science publishes or doesn't publish.

 

[leopold]

Agreed. And no problem if they don't.

then the article stands.

 

[billvon]

then the article stands.

No, the actual words of the author stand. It's a simple concept in law, science and indeed common sense - the best authority for who said what is the person who said it.

You seem to have a bit of an obsession with this, likely because you do not have any scientific objections to evolution, and thus must resort to semantic arguments. Which is sad. Creationists try this sort of thing quite often (misquotes used to "prove all the problems with evolution") - which is one of the reasons they are not taken seriously. You sure you want to identify yourself with them?