The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[tas8831]

How long do you believe it takes for a person to pass from alive to dead or non-existent to alive?

Why don't you tell me one single change in any life that happened slowly?

Or you can just ask the resident expert on all things:

"A "moment" is a theoretical point in time during which nothing at all can occur. In other words a great deal about life, consciousness, and evolution occur in FAR LESS THAN A NANOSECOND. Change is exceedingly rapid dependent upon definitions. But is always fast and rarely does anything require more than a generation or two."

So things happen in either far less than a nanosecond (a picosecond?) or a couple of generations. But it is all SUDDEN. Or maybe a generation or two. But sudden.

Then back it up with actual evidence including relevant experiment?

 

[cladking]

This conspiracy theory crank is not reflecting any truth.

That's sad really. I believe in no conspiracy of any sort and you believe Peers create reality through voting on it. This is the ultimate conspiracy theory.

 

[F1fan]

I think you touch on a significant point about creationism. It seems to me that creationists must either think there is some kind of a vast atheist conspiracy by the science community, or they must think that every scientifically educated person is somehow the victim of a mass delusion. Most creationists seem very reluctant to acknowledge that this is the implication of what they say.

Yes, there is a real indication that creationism is a sort of tribal attraction, and like any sort of tribal thinking there has to be an 'us versus them' attitude behind it all. Atheists are vilified. Universities are vilified. Science is vilified. Experts are vilified, and all are part of some conspiracy against the 'truth".

 

[F1fan]

That's sad really. I believe in no conspiracy of any sort and you believe Peers create reality through voting on it.

You seem to think science works like Dancing With The Stars where you vote for your favorite. It doesn't. Experts design tests that must meet a high statistical standard. If the tests meet that standard then others can test that result by doing it themselves. If it works then it is peer reviewed. There's no voting. The results in science are reported.

This is the ultimate conspiracy theory.

If you are referring to your beliefs, yes. Your claims are not accurate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's sad really. I believe in no conspiracy of any sort and you believe Peers create reality through voting on it. This is the ultimate conspiracy theory.

LOL!! There is no "voting" by peers. What matters in the sciences is if one can defend one's beliefs with evidence or not. Those on the evolution can easily. There does not appear to be any scientific evidence for any other idea. People are not banned from thinking of other ideas in the sciences. All that they have to do to oppose the theory of evolution is to come up with another testable concept that explains the evidence just as well or better.

This is so simple. The reason that there is no evidence against the theory of evolution by creationists is not because scientists are mean bullies. If anything the only reason that there is no evidence against evolution is because creation "scientists" have a huge amount of fear that they are wrong and are afraid to form a working hypothesis for their beliefs. Science can never prove something correct, but it can demonstrate that ideas are wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's sad really. I believe in no conspiracy of any sort and you believe Peers create reality through voting on it. This is the ultimate conspiracy theory.

It is ironic to read this from you. That is exactly what you do. You create reality in your had and declare it real. That is sad.

 

[cladking]

You seem to think science works like Dancing With The Stars where you vote for your favorite.

No!!! This is a belief of scientism. I don't know how many thousands of times I've said experiment underlies ALL real science and "peer review" is NOT a part of the a scientific method. Peer review is irrelevant to reality and irrelevant to experiment. "Peers" are by definition the group of individual who all share the same assumptions.

LOL!! There is no "voting" by peers.

Of course there is; BY DEFINITION. Reality is perceived through one's beliefs and all Peers share one belief. Anything tjhat lies outside of their beliefs can't even be considered even when I point out that ALLKNOWN CHANGE IN SPECIES OCCURRED SUDDENLY AS A RESULT OF BEHAVIOR. It is outside the belief in "evolution" so they can't see the bolded letters.

It is ironic to read this from you. That is exactly what you do. You create reality in your had and declare it real. That is sad.

This is the nature of ALL homo omnisciencis and it is especially true in scientism.

 

[cladking]

All belief is uncertain, so can you admit you might be mistaken in your belief?

Of course I might be mistaken. There are a virtually infinite number of ways and reasons I might be wrong.

But nobody doubts that "Evolution" is exactly as is believed.

And why would anyone care what you believe when you admit you don't have adequate knowledge about biology?

And here you have it. Your belief in scientism shines brightly in this question. ALL PROGRESS MUST COME FROM PEERS BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO ARE RIGHT.

My contention is all peers are wrong because they have faulty assumptions which I've already listed numerous times but6 you can't see.

Your ridiculous claim that everything in biology happens suddenly is unsupported.

But you can't show me one that is!!!!!

All science is doing is taking evidence and making theories and seeing if they fit the data. In academia it's considered a fact.

Real science must have experiment. Looking at fossils is not an experiment.

Opinions change when new information comes out and is peer-reviewed by many scientists.

No. Ideally you are right and some people will change their opinion but the reality is opinions only change one funeral at a time. Believers in "Evolution" can't see my argument which is why so few people respond on topic. I say one thing and everyone reads "God did it". I said all change is sudden and caused by behavior which is determined by genes and experience. Why is this invisible to people? Why can't anyone address it? What is so complex about the idea that consciousness expressed as behavior is life?

 

[cladking]

Are you looking to find out if these ideas are actually true?

Tempo and mode in hominid evolution

Abstract
The nature of human evolution has been viewed recently as a specific example of a more general model of evolution termed "punctuated equilibrium". The characteristics of this model are long periods of little or not evolutionary change (stasis) interspersed with periods of rapid (punctuated) morphological change. Careful analysis of the hominid fossil record over the past 4.0 million years, however, suggests no well documented examples of either stasis or punctuation. The evidence for the evolution of the hominid lineage is most reasonably interpreted by a model of more gradual change with periods of varying rates of evolution.
Tempo and mode in hominid evolution - PubMed

TESTS
evolution - The fossil record

The authority of this kind of test is overwhelming; each of the thousands of genes and thousands of proteins contained in an organism provides an independent test of that organism’s evolutionary history. Not all possible tests have been performed, but many hundreds have been done, and not one has given evidence contrary to evolution. There is probably no other notion in any field of science that has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as the evolutionary origin of living organisms.

Gradual and punctuational evolution
The fossil record indicates that morphological evolution is by and large a gradual process. Major evolutionary changes are usually due to a building-up over the ages of relatively small changes. But the fossil record is discontinuous. Fossil strata are separated by sharp boundaries; accumulation of fossils within a geologic deposit (stratum) is fairly constant over time, but the transition from one stratum to another may involve gaps of tens of thousands of years. Whereas the fossils within a stratum exhibit little morphological variation, new species—characterized by small but discontinuous morphological changes—typically appear at the boundaries between strata. That is not to say that the transition from one stratum to another always involves sudden changes in morphology; on the contrary, fossil forms often persist virtually unchanged through several geologic strata, each representing millions of years.

The apparent morphological discontinuities of the fossil record are often attributed by paleontologists to the discontinuity of the sediments—that is, to the substantial time gaps encompassed in the boundaries between strata. The assumption is that, if the fossil deposits were more continuous, they would show a more gradual transition of form. Even so, morphological evolution would not always keep progressing gradually, because some forms, at least, remain unchanged for extremely long times. Examples are the lineages known as “living fossils”—for instance, the lamp shell Lingula, a genus of brachiopod (a phylum of shelled invertebrates) that appears to have remained essentially unchanged since the Ordovician Period, some 450 million years ago; or the tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus), a reptile that has shown little morphological evolution for nearly 200 million years, since the early Mesozoic.


There are so many types of tests and branches of evolutionary science covered in this article it's amazing. The lines of evidence are endless.

Thank you for this post.

I was pretty sure years ago that biology would probably move closer and closer to my theory as more evidence is found so apparently I was correct.

I believe they still grossly overweight the importance of "fitness" to the appearance of species and their niches. Essentially all individuals are equally fit but they will thrive under vastly different condition. This is why the various layers tend to have an entirely different set of animals.

This is what the fossil "record" is really saying and this was the interpretation of ancient scientists. They saw that behavior created species so they bred the tamest wolves to invent dogs. They interpreted the fossil records in these terms. This was their "Theory of Change in Species" and they didn't believe in "Evolution" or "survival of the fittest". If the fittest survived preferentially to other individuals then a species would approach becoming a perfect fit for their niche. This would mean ever higher speeds for predator and prey alike. "Survival of the fittest" is illogical and unevidenced but it makes a great excuse for killing and trampling poor people (or anyone who isn't wealthy) and other dispossessed.

We believe the fit survive because we want to believe.

 

[metis]

And here you have it. Your belief in scientism shines brightly in this question. ALL PROGRESS MUST COME FROM PEERS BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO ARE RIGHT.

There is no such thing as "scientism", plus "peer review" is simply not as you are portraying it, as it is a process whereas other scientists must have access to the evidence so as it can be reviewed and possibly "cross-checked" for accuracy. It is science that uses the "scientific method", not religion. . .

Real science must have experiment. Looking at fossils is not an experiment.

Ever hear of "forensic science", which has often been used to get convictions in criminal cases?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No!!! This is a belief of scientism. I don't know how many thousands of times I've said experiment underlies ALL real science and "peer review" is NOT a part of the a scientific method. Peer review is irrelevant to reality and irrelevant to experiment. "Peers" are by definition the group of individual who all share the same assumptions.



Of course there is; BY DEFINITION. Reality is perceived through one's beliefs and all Peers share one belief. Anything tjhat lies outside of their beliefs can't even be considered even when I point out that ALLKNOWN CHANGE IN SPECIES OCCURRED SUDDENLY AS A RESULT OF BEHAVIOR. It is outside the belief in "evolution" so they can't see the bolded letters.



This is the nature of ALL homo omnisciencis and it is especially true in scientism.

LOL! Then show us the official ballots. When was the vote held?

By the way in regards to your earlier response you do not seem to understand "scientism" either. Why do you think that the theory of evolution is "scientism"?

 

[cladking]

"peer review"... ...as it is a process whereas other scientists must have access to the evidence so as it can be reviewed and possibly "cross-checked" for accuracy.

"Peer review" is NOT a part of the scientific method. It is irrelevant to experiment and reality. All science is based on experiment and no science is based on peer review. An experiment is good or bad, relevant or irrelevant independently of what anyone believes. "Peers" by definition is the group of individuals who all share the same beliefs. Nobody is wholly competent to judge anything and most people are wholly incompetent to judge anything outside of their expectations and beliefs.

Some things are within the ability of "Peers" to judge but others are outside.

In the real world "peer review" is important to the scientific community because there are so many fakers and charlatans as well as honest people deluded by their beliefs. Every scientist needs to e kept abreast of what's new in his field but this doesn't mean "Peers" have some inside track to being right.

What is so damn complex about this? It seems to this old timer that the schools have utterly failed to teach metaphysics or the meaning of knowledge. It seems people don't even think about such things any longer.

 

[cladking]

Ever hear of "forensic science", which has often been used to get convictions in criminal cases?

I would avoid calling such things "science" but this doesn't mean I necessarily doubt their conclusions. I would call it "testing". It is more a form of observation than experiment.

These are all just words though so if you want to call it "science" I have no problem with it.

 

[cladking]

Why do you think that the theory of evolution is "scientism"?

As I am using the term it applies to those who don't know what they know. They think they understand science because they took some courses and know some equations. But they always get the physics wrong. They are people with a knee jerk reaction to believe anything labeled "settled science" or "science" and to disbelieve anything that isn't called "science".

Everyone thinks they understand reality but they miss simple questions. They change their frame of reference when applying equations and can't predict the simplest events.

 

[exchemist]

I would avoid calling such things "science" but this doesn't mean I necessarily doubt their conclusions. I would call it "testing". It is more a form of observation than experiment.

These are all just words though so if you want to call it "science" I have no problem with it.

And do you consider astronomy, or earth science, to be science? These disciplines are not based on experiment. But they are based on observation of nature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Peer review" is NOT a part of the scientific method. It is irrelevant to experiment and reality. All science is based on experiment and no science is based on peer review. An experiment is good or bad, relevant or irrelevant independently of what anyone believes. "Peers" by definition is the group of individuals who all share the same beliefs. Nobody is wholly competent to judge anything and most people are wholly incompetent to judge anything outside of their expectations and beliefs.

Some things are within the ability of "Peers" to judge but others are outside.

In the real world "peer review" is important to the scientific community because there are so many fakers and charlatans as well as honest people deluded by their beliefs. Every scientist needs to e kept abreast of what's new in his field but this doesn't mean "Peers" have some inside track to being right.

What is so damn complex about this? It seems to this old timer that the schools have utterly failed to teach metaphysics or the meaning of knowledge. It seems people don't even think about such things any longer.

You are quite incorrect. Publishing one's results is a clear part of the scientific method and peer review is part of that. Peer review allows experts to show problem with your ideas, it guarantees a minimal amount of quality and correctness, and it enables others to find flaws in that work. All very important parts of the scientific method.

You keep writing posts that show you do not understand the scientific method. Let's discuss it. Here is my favorite simplified flow chart of it. It is not "written in stone". There can be others:

Do you see the last step there?

 

[cladking]

I can understand how an intelligent individual may have problems with the creation account in Genesis. What I don't understand is how that same intelligent individual has no problem whatsoever believing everything we see in the world somehow came from the so-called primordial soup.

Not only must a particular life form spontaneously arise, but the other organisms upon which it depends must have arisen in lock step. And what are the odds of the flora arising in the required sequence as that of the fauna which depends on that flora? That is more believable than Genesis?

Science is based on observation. Who has ever seen one genus becoming another? Nobody! It's purely inference which is only slightly better than guessing. It is a model that admittedly could be said to fit with some observed phenomena, but there is perhaps a better model that nobody has thought of yet. A model is a model. It is not necessarily a reality.

If one does not believe Genesis it seems it would be better to just say, "I don't know how we all got here."

These are some pretty good questions and I have no answers but you might consider that perhaps life is far more widespread than we believe. It is entirely possible it came into existence on only a single planet but was spread through the cosmos as stars have gone nova. How it came into existence is a perfectly legitimate question but it's entirely unreasonable to suppose that molecular chains grew until consciousness arose in one. Once consciousness exists then it would simply adapt and change to suit conditions. Individuals simply strive to survive.

The change from a chemical to a consciousness may seem an insurmountable hurdle but there are strange chemicals out there and truly stranger conditions. Perhaps it required a Creator to set everything in motion or the Creator engineered all of time and space. But in any case I think there is an answer and I think that it will fit with what is known.

Current beliefs are based on some faulty assumptions and the assumption no God was needed is as irrational as supposing that nothing could exist without God. The job of science is to devise experiments that will lead to knowledge. But until we actually know something we don't really know anything at all. At this point we know virtually nothing at all. But everyone seems to have all the answers anyway and it would never occur to them that it isn't possible to understand "evolution" without understanding consciousness and the origin of life wouldn't exist without consciousness. We can't only not know what we know without consciousness we can't even know at all.

Now believers in science can tell me how they know I'm wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

These are some pretty good questions and I have no answers but you might consider that perhaps life is far more widespread than we believe. It is entirely possible it came into existence on only a single planet but was spread through the cosmos as stars have gone nova. How it came into existence is a perfectly legitimate question but it's entirely unreasonable to suppose that molecular chains grew until consciousness arose in one. Once consciousness exists then it would simply adapt and change to suit conditions. Individuals simply strive to survive.

The change from a chemical to a consciousness may seem an insurmountable hurdle but there are strange chemicals out there and truly stranger conditions. Perhaps it required a Creator to set everything in motion or the Creator engineered all of time and space. But in any case I think there is an answer and I think that it will fit with what is known.

Current beliefs are based on some faulty assumptions and the assumption no God was needed is as irrational as supposing that nothing could exist without God. The job of science is to devise experiments that will lead to knowledge. But until we actually know something we don't really know anything at all. At this point we know virtually nothing at all. But everyone seems to have all the answers anyway and it would never occur to them that it isn't possible to understand "evolution" without understanding consciousness and the origin of life wouldn't exist without consciousness. We can't only not know what we know without consciousness we can't even know at all.

Now believers in science can tell me how they know I'm wrong.

You are wrong in your last paragraph where you falsely accuse scientists of assuming that there is no God. There are many scientists that are theists. One cannot assume "No God" in the sciences. I can give you examples of Christian scientists that accept the fact of evolution.

 

[cladking]

Publishing one's results is a clear part of the scientific method and peer review is part of that.

Well... ...Now that you have google you really do know everything.

I guess I must be wrong and reality really is up to a vote.


Ancient science was "observation > logic" and modern science is "observation > experiment". "Hypothesis" is window dressing that told ancient scientists when and where to observe and us to what and how to devise experiment. "Prophesy" is the only true measure of any kind of science. If you can't make predictions then you are probably WRONG and the "theory" is irrelevant anyway. If you can't make predictions then you probably can't devise new experiment or form hypotheses. If you can't predict then even technology might fail you.

No number of Peers can predict anything based on their erroneous assumptions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well... ...Now that you have google you really do know everything.

I guess I must be wrong and reality really is up to a vote.


Ancient science was "observation > logic" and modern science is "observation > experiment". "Hypothesis" is window dressing that told ancient scientists when and where to observe and us to what and how to devise experiment. "Prophesy" is the only true measure of any kind of science. If you can't make predictions then you are probably WRONG and the "theory" is irrelevant anyway. If you can't make predictions then you probably can't devise new experiment or form hypotheses. If you can't predict then even technology might fail you.

No number of Peers can predict anything based on their erroneous assumptions.

Google is a tool that one can use to support one's claims. You try to make false claims as to what is and what is not science. That puts a burden of proof upon you. When I make a claim, as I did, I can support it, as I did.

You don't seem to realize that evolution has been used to make countless predictions. And they tend to come true. Have you ever heard of Tiktaalik?