Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So what?
That is not what “Geisteswissenschaften” means.
And your are wrong. You have been shown examples of gradualism throughout the fossil record. You are misunderstanding your sources again.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Darwin's Illusion
- Thread starter Neuropteron
- Start date
That is not what “Geisteswissenschaften” means.
And your are wrong. You have been shown examples of gradualism throughout the fossil record. You are misunderstanding your sources again.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Fine, it was wrong then and it is still wrong now. Your error was explained to you. You keep conflating genus and family names for species names. You do not understand how transitional fossil work. The list goes on and on.
Your argument is as bad as those that say "If people came from monkeys why are there still monkeys". People, like you did not evolve from modern monkeys and become something else, the evolved from much older monkeys and you and everyone else still is a monkey. The ancestors of modern whales did not suddenly die out when new species arose. The oldest forms lived on as a different populations for some time. So a transitional form being younger than a more recent form is not a contradiction.
Your argument would be like saying:
If Americans came from Europe why are there still Europeans. It is a rather poor argument.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry, this is a black and white fallacy. You have been given examples of gradualism.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You are misrepresenting what that is about.
What is being referred to here is that Darwin was wrong about the rate of gradual change over time. He assumed it was pretty much a constant. While in reality, the rate of change slows down as species approach the local optimum and speeds up again when local optimums shift.
Any change, whether it's the low rate during or when approaching stasis OR the fast rate when local optimums shift, the change is always gradual.
I'ld say that I'm sorry if you can't comprehend that.
But I think you very much can comprehend that. You are just playing silly games and arguing strawmen on purpose, I think. IOW, you are just trolling.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Warning Signs You May Need Your Appendix Removed (lanermc.org)
which strikes roughly 5 percent of the population at some point in time.
It goes on to say:
In fact, appendicitis is the most common cause of abdominal pain that will require surgery.
I wouldn't call 5% "very rare". Something that is also the most common cause of abdominal pain requiring surgery also doesn't qualify as "very rare".
1 in 20 people is not "very rare". It's not even "rare".
Soccer is the most popular sport in the world. Do you think soccer players are "very rare"?
Because in %, MORE people encounter problems with their appendix then there are soccer players.
Around 3% of the population plays soccer (some 250 million people worldwide).
5% encounters problems with the appendix, raising the need to have it removed.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Audie
Veteran Member
It's impossible, except for the clueless
LIIA
Well-Known Member
So, you’re wrong.
What is the meaning that you understood from my post and didn’t agree with?
Ernst Walter Mayr was one of the 20th century’s leading evolutionary biologists, (he was called “the Darwin of the 20th century”). In the 2004 edition of his book “What Makes Biology Unique?” He addressed the German concept of the “Geisteswissenschaften” as it relates to evolutionary biology.
“Geisteswissenschaften” is the German word for the humanities. Everything that is included in the humanities is referred to in the German literature as “Geisteswissenschaften". Mayr's point of view was that the methodology of “historical narratives" that is typically used in evolutionary biology is more similar to the “Geisteswissenschaften" than to the exact sciences. On the other hand, Mayr stated that functional biology belongs to the “exact sciences”.
What Makes Biology Unique?: Considerations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline (wordpress.com)
Again, your imagined/claimed “historical narrative" belongs to the “Geisteswissenschaften” as stated by Ernst Mayr, it’s not science.
Again, alleged examples don’t cut it. The ToE, predicts Gradualism to have a massive dominance over the geological history. Statistical significance of evidence in the fossil record must be in favor of Gradualism if the ToE is true. IOW, It should be the dominant rule, not merely some alleged exceptions. To the contrary, real-world data as confirmed by prominent paleontologists show that the dominant rule in the geological history is the fact that Gradualism is nonexistent, some alleged examples don’t cut it.
From the very beginning, Darwin was aware of this issue. He wrote " Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”
Darwin conveniently speculated that the facts of the fossil record that extremely contradict his predictions are due to extreme imperfection of the geological record. Proponent of the ToE assumed that future discoveries would resolve the problem, but it never did. An alleged exception never proves a rule.
LIIA
Well-Known Member
In your post # 3166, you claimed that I didn’t stick to my claim about whale evolution, now you changed your mind, admit that my claim (#1217) never changed and come up with some new nonsense about a previous refutation of yours that you never did. You never responded to # 1217. Other than denial, some empty claims and meaningless story about your great uncle Bob (#3170), you had nothing of value to offer.
Anyways, I’ll clarify further in case you actually didn’t get it.
First, if you claim that A (descendant) came from B (ancestor) but fail to provide any evidence or example of any B preceding A, then B doesn’t explain A and your claim is an empty claim. If you cannot prove B to be ancestral to A, you cannot prove it to be transitional. Your claim remains a baseless claim. IOW, you conveniently claim that your random story happened repeatedly at different times/locations with the same outcome but unless you prove it, it remains a story, a historical narrative not science.
Second, let's see if you can stick to your claim. Speciation is not a reason for the original species to go extinct. As you said, Americans came from Europe but there are still Europeans. That very concept works against the ToE especially with respect to alleged Hominin Evolution as we discussed many times before.
Again, If the alleged human transformation from LCA to Homo sapiens ever happened through speciation, then, we should see different human species alive today (ancestors of Homo sapiens) especially in isolated geographical areas. They shouldn’t all go extinct, but all living human beings on earth today belong to the same Homo sapiens species. Why the alleged functional ancestors of Homo sapiens went extinct but monkeys survived? The alleged speciation of humans never happened.
LIIA
Well-Known Member
Statistical significance of evidence in the fossil record is against gradualism. Alleged examples/exceptions don’t prove a rule that was predicted by the ToE to be the dominant fact in the geological history. i.e., gradualism.
Per the ToE, stasis should be preceded by gradual change and should also be followed by gradual change that leads to next stasis, but the fossil record evidence proved the predicted gradualism to be nonexistent in the geological history.
LIIA
Well-Known Member
The language that Eldredge and Gould used is “virtually nonexistent”. “nonexistent” is not about constant or varying rate. It simply means "doesn’t exist".
Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia
You imply that constant or some rate of change (I.e., many functional intermediates) precedes local optimum/stasis and continues after stasis, which is not true; it’s an empty claim against the facts of the fossil record. The alleged gradualism (rate of change) between stasis is nonexistent.
All what we see in the fossil record is fully formed organisms within the periods of stasis followed by sudden jumps characterized by massive change of the genetic info (saltation).
Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." (Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, 86, June-July 1977, pp. 22, 24.)
It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse. (Dr. Mark McMenamin, Paleontologist, 2013)
LIIA
Well-Known Member
I would understand if you chose to hold tight to your general view on the ToE but it’s not rational to insist on defending some parroted ignorant claims that are simply and clearly false, especially after you became acquainted with the facts.
I explained to you why these parroted claims about the appendix are false and that the appendix is a working part of our immune system, which helps our body to fight disease. Your own article said, “More recent studies indicate that the appendix may harbor good gut bacteria that can be used to combat illness and bacterial imbalances”. And yes, the appendix problems are statistically very rare.
Again, the aging process is associated with many declining functions, among which is the appendix problem, but it happens at a much lower rate compared to other health problems of other organs. You have a much higher probability of heart, lungs, kidney, and lever problems than appendix problem. Cardiovascular diseases affect nearly half of American adults. In that sense, the appendix problem is comparatively very rare and again, it’s associated with the aging process. Aging must happen, the process varies depending on many factors including lifestyle and health habits, but the declining functions associated with the aging has nothing to do with some nonsense claims about these organs being unnecessary or badly designed.
The judgment whether something is rare is not dependent on my or your relative perception, it depends on numbers and statistics. That is why, yes, soccer players are "very rare".
Again, regardless of any percentage, the aging process and associated decline of functions of all organs/systems has nothing to do with the importance or design of the affected organs. The aging process/the curve of life is designed to function in a very specific way. it must happen and cannot be changed.
LIIA
Well-Known Member
Nonsense. If you want to argue, demonstrate your reasons not some meaningless denial.
LIIA
Well-Known Member
Why? I believe it’s the other way around. Here is why,
The concept of the ToE eliminates all references of morality/values and doesn’t make distinction between being human or animal. The only principal that remains in effect is the struggle for survival and survival of the fittest. Honesty/Morality is nonexistent in that model. We discussed that before. See #1031
Darwin's Illusion | Page 52 | Religious Forums
In his book “The Descent of Man”, Darwin said, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world”. Darwin made tribal and racial conflict the engine of human evolution. A very dangerous principle that legitimizes racial extermination as the natural law to move forward. Darwin ideas played a role in the adaptation of racism in the world.
See the link below for the “The Descent of Man”
darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1889_Descent_F969.pdf
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry, but you are wrong. You need to get off of your script. Do you think that you can debate properly? Bring up one point at a time. See if you can properly support it. Using outdated or dishonest sources or tactics will be pointed out.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, the fossil record is expected to not be continuous. but ibn areas it is not. And in those areas we can see slow continuous change. And you are using sources almost 50 years old. There have been quite a few finds since then. You will notice that no one is making those arguments today
The fossil record does not need to be continuous. It was never the primary evidence for evolution anyway. So why do you base your arguments solely one the fossil record?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, sorry, you merely do not understand the difference between geological time and biological time. Yes, there are long periods of stasis. But if you change things too quickly mass extinctions occur. Changes will appear to be quick in the geological record, but a million years is almost a blink of an eye in most depositional environments. Look to sea life if you want to see gradualism. There is no reason to expect it in terrestrial life at all.
Audie
Veteran Member
Why? Because no creationist position
matches the data.
You might like to review a few sites that discuss scientific integrity/ intellectual honesty.
The items you mentioned have nothing to
do with the accuracy of ToE.
There is intellectual dishonesty though
on the part if those who chose to
misrepresent the science and use it
to justify their racism.
Again, that has nothing to do with
integrity-on my part or on that of people
who understand and accept ToE.
It's much the same with morality.
In this, you misrepresent evolution
with "survival of the fittest", and
IF that's merely that you don't know
any better, we can steer you right.
Otherwise, it is dishonesty on your part.
And, as with the racism thing, evolution,
like religion, politics, or any ad hoc excuse
can be used to justify any behaviour one
chooses.
Intellectual dishonesty is excused by
Creationists by their religion.
Such ill behaviour does nothing to detract
from whatever reality there us to God,
no more than racists can affect the validity
of evolution.
You committed the fallacy of
overgeneralizing, that all who accept
ToE are dishonest, when in truth it's a
small deviant subset who misrepresent and
misapply it.
The creationists are the deviant subset in
religion.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I love how you insist to double, nay - tripple, down on your mistakes.
the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin[7] is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record
What they talk about is the degree of gradualism that was commonly attributed to Darwin = the rate of evolution over time being pretty much a constant. Evidence for THAT DEGREE is nonexistent, because as it turned out, that's not how evolutionary change tends to work.
The rate / degree of gradualism goes up as local optimums shift, and goes down once local optimums are approaching / reached at which point they enter stasis again.
So the rate / degree of gradualism is actually with up and downs. Slow to even an almost stand-still during statis / local optimum. Then speeding up as life quickly shifts to other local optimums and then settle there in a new stasis.
You should read with more attention.
You keep linking this article thinking it supports your case, BUT IT DOES NOT
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Ignorant claims?
Did you even bother to click the link?
Are you disputing the statistics?
I don't think anyone claimed to not also serve some function. Not a very important one though. They hurt a lot more people then they help keep healthy.
1 in 20 people is not what I call "statistically very rare".