Evolution My ToE

[nPeace]

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened

Your last sentence there is right on. Good.

As for Goldschmidt, he is a bit out of date,but lets see
what Wiki says about his work...


Goldschmidt is usually referred to as a non-Darwinian, however he did not object to the general microevolutionary principles of the Darwinians. He only veered from the synthetic theory in his belief that a new species develops suddenly through discontinuous variation, or macromutation. Goldschmidt presented his hypothesis when neo-Darwinism was becoming dominant in the 1940's and 1950's and he strongly protested against the strict gradualism of neo-Darwinian theorists. Becuase of this his ideas were seen as highly unorthodox of the time by most scientists and were greatly subjected to ridicule and scorn.[5] However there has been a recent interest in the ideas of Goldschmidt in the field of evolutionary developmental biology as some scientists are convinced he was not entirely wrong.

And that is all fine, he offered his opinion, and I too think he has
a point, I am not a geneticist, but as I understand it there are
more ways that genetic change takes place than boring old
micro micro

Of course, this is all about refinement-the how-of evolution,
not something contrary to it, a disproof.

What point is it you wish to make about this?

How is Goldschmidt different to other scientists?
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study.

Di you just picked out the smaller portions to look at. There is more.

 

[nPeace]

And he also referred to Douglas Futuyma in his post. After claiming that he listened to what scientists say. Futuyma is a well respected scientist. He was arguing against the oversimplified version of evolution that used to be used and for:

Modern Synthetic theory of Evolution - Definition | Neo Darwinism Theory

Futuyma was not arguing against evolution. And he facepalmed my post. That is irony for you.

Where did I say anyone is arguing against evolution? Everyone on earth agrees with evolution.

 

[nPeace]

But they don't. I already refuted your claim.

And what claim is that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where did I say anyone is arguing against evolution? Everyone on earth agrees with evolution.

Ah good. So you finally acknowledge that you are an ape.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And what claim is that?

You really need to pay attention if you want to debate. That is why you should try to bring up one point at a time.

 

[nPeace]

No, you said "the liar". That is clearly Stephen C. Meyer in the context of your post.

Stephen is not the one speaking at 1:01. The liar is.

 

[nPeace]

Is there a talk to the palm emoji. Or is that rudeness...

 

[Audie]

How is Goldschmidt different to other scientists?
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study.

Di you just picked out the smaller portions to look at. There is more.

Hm, not sure what you are getting at.
Every scientist is different. His idea there
is not remarkable. S.J. G is noted for
his talk on punctuated equilibrium.

I am not talking about consensus, that is irrelevant.

Of course there is more. More gets unmanageable.
I picked out what is central to it.

He in no way is arguing against evolution,
just offering a hypothesis that shifts emphasis
on mechanisms a bit.

What point do you wish to make with this?

 

[Audie]

Where did I say anyone is arguing against evolution? Everyone on earth agrees with evolution.

Even you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Stephen is not the one speaking at 1:01. The liar is.

You appear to be confused again. You said that Stephen was not speaking at 1:01 and then you said that he was.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is there a talk to the palm emoji. Or is that rudeness...

You could try to be polite for once. You could also try to listen to others.

Do you not understand how your Gish Gallop was refuted twice?

 

[nPeace]

You could try to be polite for once. You could also try to listen to others.

Do you not understand how your Gish Gallop was refuted twice?

I really should. Try talking to a door some time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

False. You, as a slave, can choose to be free.

I'm not anyone's private property, so no, I'm not a slave.

You have no monopoly on what is rational, or indeed little connection.

This is not just my opinion.
Saying that an ability to verify claims is "negligable", results in irrational reasoning.

Being able to verify a claim and using that ability pretty much by definition provides a rational basis upon which to draw a conclusion.

Not caring about verification is irrational.

No. God is clear.

Is that why there are tens of thousands of denominations of your religion alone?
And then there's all the other religions as well.

Seems like it's not as clear as you like to pretend.

John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. 36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

Preaching.

 

[dad]

I'm not anyone's private property, so no, I'm not a slave.

Says you. However, Scripture says otherwise.

This is not just my opinion.
Saying that an ability to verify claims is "negligable", results in irrational reasoning.

Why type words that say nothing at all?

Not caring about verification is irrational.

I care about your beliefs that man evolved from the same relatives as bananas. You need to verify them.

Is that why there are tens of thousands of denominations of your religion alone?
And then there's all the other religions as well.

No. My religion is not Churchianity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Says you. However, Scripture says otherwise.

Then scripture is wrong.

Why type words that say nothing at all?

No clue what you are trying to say.
It's probably "negligible" anyway ;-)

I care about your beliefs that man evolved from the same relatives as bananas. You need to verify them.

That's not a belief.
That's a conclusion drawn from carefull scientific analysis of the evidence.

And it's a conclusion that has been verified.
Your willfull ignorance on the subject will not make a difference.

No. My religion is not Churchianity.

Right, I forgot. It's Last Thursdayism. More specifically, the denomination known as "Dadianism".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I really should. Try talking to a door some time.

Unfortunately there does not appear to be much in the way of difference. You are constantly shown to be wrong, but you cannot admit it. In the case of Futuyma you used a lying source. I saw that ICR used the same argument that you did. They tried to imply that he was against the idea of evolution when he was merely supporting the modern synthesis. Instead of looking up the term at the end of that abstract it appears that you jumped to an illogical conclusion.


By the way, when speaking of evolution we all mean the concept of common descent. Right now it appears that all of the scientific evidence supports that concept. I do not know of any that goes against it.

 

[nPeace]

Hm, not sure what you are getting at.
Every scientist is different. His idea there
is not remarkable. S.J. G is noted for
his talk on punctuated equilibrium.

I am not talking about consensus, that is irrelevant.

You were talking about opinions, weren't you? What makes a consensus, include the opinions of scientists, does it not?
So how is that irrelevant?

Of course there is more. More gets unmanageable.
I picked out what is central to it.

Sorry, no. You picked out what you wanted.
By doing so, you missed the main points the poster - that's me - was making.

He in no way is arguing against evolution,
just offering a hypothesis that shifts emphasis
on mechanisms a bit.

What point do you wish to make with this?

See what I mean? Here are the main points.

 

[nPeace]

Even you?

Hmm.
I said everyone on earth, and somehow left out myself. I'm getting a 'Twilight Zone' flashback.

See if this helps.
Each of the words "evolution", "fact" and "theory" has several meanings in different contexts. Evolution means change over time, as in stellar evolution. In biology it refers to observed changes in organisms, to their descent from a common ancestor, and at a technical level to a change in gene frequency over time; it can also refer to explanatory theories (such as Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection) which explain the mechanisms of evolution.

It helps if persons would be more specific, because the papers are specific, when it discusses the theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL. Now it's quote mining. Poor excuse.
I'll make it easier for you.
Scientists disagree that micro is a stepping stone to macro.

I have not seen that. I have seen creationists deny that, but one could hardly call them scientists when their denial is not based upon the scientific method.

Scientists say there are distinctions between speciation, microevolution and macroevolution.

They might, but what does that matter? The best source to use is the person that defined the term. Speciation is by definition macroevolution. Do you need a source? I can provide one.

Scientists say that macroevolution on the grandest scale, has never been, and can never be observed in real-time.

How do you define "real time". That is not a scientific term. If you mean that we cannot observe molecule to man you live you might have a valid claim. But that hardly matters. All of the evidence supports that claim.

Scientists vehemently disagree on mechanisms related to biological evolution. They debate over empirical, theoretical, and conceptual or philosophical matters that is the practice of evolutionary biology.

They disagree about specifics, but that hardly matters again. That is how science advances. I don't think why you think this in any way can be used against evolution. By the same standards scientists probably disagree "vehemently" about many ideas that you accept.

...and you have a problem with people who don't believe this philosophical jazz...

It is not "philosophical". And yes, we do have a problem with people that deny reality due to faulty religious beliefs. It would not be a problem if they kept them private, but they don't seem to be able to do that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmm.
I said everyone on earth, and somehow left out myself. I'm getting a 'Twilight Zone' flashback.

See if this helps.
Each of the words "evolution", "fact" and "theory" has several meanings in different contexts. Evolution means change over time, as in stellar evolution. In biology it refers to observed changes in organisms, to their descent from a common ancestor, and at a technical level to a change in gene frequency over time; it can also refer to explanatory theories (such as Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection) which explain the mechanisms of evolution.

It helps if persons would be more specific, because the papers are specific, when it discusses the theory.

Yes, context matters. But it should be obvious that what this thread is about is biological evolution. And our understanding of evolution changes over time. All sciences change over time. This is not a flaw. This is an asset. In all sciences we tend to get closer and closer to the "right answer". What is being done now with evolution is the detail work. The gross facts are rather well understood.

A good analogy is our concepts of the planets. The heliocentric model was a big change, as big of a change as from creationiism (which is not supported by scientific evidence) to evolution (which is well supported by scientific evidence). A working model of the geocentric system was never made. They could not account for the motions of the planets. Scientific evidence made it fail rather early. Copernicus's simple system was refined by Kepler. Kepler's work was further advanced by Newton whose Law of Universal Gravitation explained Kepler's Laws. Newton's work was advanced by people that worked out the math that he could not do in his lifetime. Then flaws were found n it. Those were corrected by Einstein. And so it goes. Others did even more work using Einstein's theories than he did. Science keeps advancing but it does not tend to go back.