Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

LMAOA! It does not need to be a bird to be transitional. Why didn't you admit to not understanding the concept?

A transitional species has the traits of both an older species and a more modern one. Archaeopteryx has those. Do you need a list?

Other than the ToE, there is no evidence to prove that the inferred/imagined relationship is true? Relationship between fossils is an interpretation not a fact. If you infer a relationship because the ToE said so, in other words, if you interpret the data only in light of the Toe, then you’re proving the ToE by the ToE.

The ToE may be only true if gradualism is true, but the fact remains that gradualism is totally false not only by the evidence of the fossil record (relative frequency of evidence) but also because the false predictions of gradualism among living organism are totally nonexistent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Other than the ToE, there is no evidence to prove that the inferred/imagined relationship is true? Relationship between fossils is an interpretation not a fact. If you infer a relationship because the ToE said so, in other words, if you interpret the data only in light of the Toe, then you’re proving the ToE by the ToE.

The ToE may be only true if gradualism is true, but the fact remains that gradualism is totally false not only by the evidence of the fossil record (relative frequency of evidence) but also because the false predictions of gradualism among living organism are totally nonexistent.

Theories explain facts. And you have no evidence for your claim that "gradualism is totally false'. In fact it is already refuted since there are examples of gradualism. And of course there is quote a bit of scientific evidence for gradualism, but you of course refuse to learn the basics of science.

 

[Jose Fly]

Other than the ToE, there is no evidence to prove that the inferred/imagined relationship is true?

That's one of the funniest things I've seen from a creationist in a while.

"Outside of the theoretical framework and the evidence it explains, what evidence is there?"

Hilarious.

The ToE may be only true if gradualism is true

Oh wow. So the same person who goes around quoting Darwin, Gould, et al. also posts that?

I guess I should thank you for removing all doubt about your lack of understanding of the subject matter.

 

[cladking]

In fact it is already refuted since there are examples of gradualism.

But you can't show even one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But you can't show even one.

Sure I can. I have done it for you. But you lost the right to demand to see an example. Have you forgotten that already? Own up to your past poor debating technique and I will gladly provide you with examples again.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evolutionary theory will continue to be extended, but there is no sign that it requires emendation.
Quotable High Caliber Actual Evolutionary Biologist
Douglas J. Futuyma, 2017

Doesn't look like all High Caliber Scientists agree that the EES is here to replace the Modern Synthesis.

But we knew that. It's just Believers that want to be Peers and redefine reality.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Except that nature wrote “Archaeopteryx is not a bird at all.”

Archaeopteryx no longer first bird | Nature



No, archaeopteryx is not archaeoraptor and I didn’t say it is, did I?

The point here is that proponents of evolution such as yourself, typically justify their position by relying on either a false interpretation or a forgery, did you get it?

As you say, whether it is more dinosaur-like or more bird-like doesn't mean anything regarding its status as transitional.

I think you will agree that what creationists consider a bang isn't even a whimper.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sure I can. I have done it for you. But you lost the right to demand to see an example. Have you forgotten that already? Own up to your past poor debating technique and I will gladly provide you with examples again.

I recall several examples of gradualism mentioned on this thread. Perhaps the disparity is the result of claims by those that know nothing of science, biology, theories, evidence or evolution.

If I recall correctly most of the denial and nonsense claims are coming from individuals whose posts don't seem to express much knowledge of science. In some cases, they just seem to be bombarding the thread with repetitious, canned and cherry-picked material they don't seem to understand. In other cases, some of the statements I have seen indicate person's having trouble just recognizing reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except that nature wrote “Archaeopteryx is not a bird at all.”

Archaeopteryx no longer first bird | Nature



No, archaeopteryx is not archaeoraptor and I didn’t say it is, did I?

The point here is that proponents of evolution such as yourself, typically justify their position by relying on either a false interpretation or a forgery, did you get it?

How did I miss that last phrase. No, scientists hate forgeries. They never lead to the truth. There are only two that I know of. Piltdown man, which was accepted by mostly British scientists since they made the mistake of letting ego get to them. And a little bit by American scientists. It was not well accepted elsewhere and what acceptance that it got hindered the theory of evolution . You appear to be trying to change your claim about archaeoraptor after the fact. That was a forgery that was discovered almost immediately by experts in the field. The finding did not go through peer review and shows why peer review is so important to the sciences. Experts in the field immediately saw through it. But, as I said it still added to scientific knowledge singe part of it was a transitional species.

But heck, almost all species can be shown to be transitional today. If one finds a new fossil it is almost a given that it is transitional. Today what would be interesting to find is a fossil that is not transitional.

When it comes to Christianity there have been all sorts of fraud perpetrated in the name of Christianity. Serious Christians hate those. They detract from the true knowledge. I do not know if there is the same sort of problem in Islam. Are their various "relics of Mohammad"? Relics are quite often fake. Would you rely on a fake relic of Mohammad? i am betting that you would not. The same goes for the sciences. Scientists hate frauds. If they find them they tend to expose them immediately. Piltdown man was a rather good forgery for that time period. But as technology improved it was the scientists that exposed it. Creationists have never had a hand in exposing a fraud.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I recall several examples of gradualism mentioned on this thread. Perhaps the disparity is the result of claims by those that know nothing of science, biology, theories, evidence or evolution.

If I recall correctly most of the denial and nonsense claims are coming from individuals whose posts don't seem to express much knowledge of science. In some cases, they just seem to be bombarding the thread with repetitions, canned and cherry-picked material they don't seem to understand. In other cases, some of the statements I have seen indicate person's having trouble just recognizing reality.

When one has been shown examples of gradualism multiple times and all that they had was denial they have lost the right to demand that sort of evidence in my eyes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When one has been shown examples of gradualism multiple times and all that they had was denial they have lost the right to demand that sort of evidence in my eyes.

I agree. But Believers use tactics like that frequently while sending out airs of superiority that are clearly unwarranted. I guess they think their wind doesn't stink.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree. But Believers use tactics like that frequently while sending out airs of superiority that are clearly unwarranted. I guess they think their wind doesn't stink.

I might steal that and alter it a bit. If you see my posting "It is getting a bit windy in here". You will know what I mean.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I might steal that and alter it a bit. If you see my posting "It is getting a bit windy in here". You will know what I mean.

Feel free.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Most of the studies supporting this mode of evolution (gradualism) involve organisms that can be minutely sampled through continuous rock sequences.
P.L. Forey, in Encyclopedia of Geology, 2005
Another in the series of quotable High Caliber Scientists supporting Science.

Fossil gastropods and radiolarians provide excellent evidence for gradualism.

To paraphrase Gould, he never said gradualism wasn't possible or wasn't a fact.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Examples of gradualism in vertebrate fossils are found in the evolution of birds, the horse lineage, the mammalian middle ear and the evolution from fish to land animals. Both gradualism and punctuated equilibria represent different modes of evolution. PE does not refute the theory of evolution and is readily understood in the light of the Modern Synthesis.

Incidentally, I have read the misinformed view expressed by creationists here and elsewhere regarding complexity. Complexity is neither a prediction nor a requirement of the theory of evolution. Complexity is a consequence of evolution just as simplification is in some cases.

Sorry Believers, I know you want to Peer that latter bit into your new definition of reality, but it isn't going to make it on reason or evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The discovery of Tiktaalik is another triumphant example of the predictive power of the Theory of Evolution. As well as being a strong piece of evidence for the gradualism that Believers want you to ignore.

Peers apparently want to redefine reality by waving off the evidence, using semantics (often exaggerated attempts), misinformation, empty claims, written versions of the Gish Gallop, and many other obvious tactics. Any gap, whether real, imagined or of artificial construction, appears to be the goal they perceive will allow them to get their Belief to be the answer by default.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This video shows an excellent example of gradualism in the development of resistance in the evolution of E. coli over 11 days. As Believers are often want to claim, but they are still bacteria. That's right. After 11 days, they are still E. coli, but they have gradually evolved that resistance by the fixation of a single trait in the population. It would take many more gradual changes and much longer time for them to evolve into another species.

Now one might argue that this isn't gradual, but don't be fooled by that exercise in ignorance of the fact that this is an optimized system where an increased rate of change is to be expected. Also keep in mind that this represents approximately 792 generations of bacteria. Equivalent to 15,000 to 20,000 years if we were looking at the fixation of a single trait in a human population.

Hardly a mighty leap at a single bound.

And, Oh Yeah, this is an excellent example of evolution by selection.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This video shows an excellent example of gradualism in the development of resistance in the evolution of E. coli over 11 days. As Believers are often want to claim, but they are still bacteria. That's right. After 11 days, they are still E. coli, but they have gradually evolved that resistance by the fixation of a single trait in the population. It would take many more gradual changes and much longer time for them to evolve into another species.

Now one might argue that this isn't gradual, but don't be fooled by that exercise in ignorance of the fact that this is an optimized system where an increased rate of change is to be expected. Also keep in mind that this represents approximately 792 generations of bacteria. Equivalent to 15,000 to 20,000 years if we were looking at the fixation of a single trait in a human population.

Hardly a mighty leap at a single bound.

And, Oh Yeah, this is an excellent example of evolution by selection.

Oh poop. Just some of the many examples. But they will all be denied. Which is why I deny deniers the right to demand evidence.

 

[cladking]

Most of the studies supporting this mode of evolution (gradualism) involve organisms that can be minutely sampled through continuous rock sequences.
P.L. Forey, in Encyclopedia of Geology, 2005
Another in the series of quotable High Caliber Scientists supporting Science.

Fossil gastropods and radiolarians provide excellent evidence for gradualism.

To paraphrase Gould, he never said gradualism wasn't possible or wasn't a fact.

Once again I'm tricked into following a link that does not support the contention that there is evidence for gradualism.

Instead of evidence, logic, or argument I am again told for the 1ooth time I've lost an argument that has never even been addressed. Believers have nothing but belief.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Once again I'm tricked into following a link that does not support the contention that there is evidence for gradualism.

Instead of evidence, logic, or argument I am again told for the 1ooth time I've lost an argument that has never even been addressed. Believers have nothing but belief.

Your words are unimportant to me and I do not see them.

I have no idea nor the interest in whatever it is you are rambling about.