• 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!

Guided evolution?

leroy

Well-Known Member
I am familiar with the idea of "guided evolution"

That humans are the product of evolution, but that evolution has been "guided" so that intelligent humans ended up being evolved

The fact of evolution is thus reconciled with the notion that God created humans - that he created us through evolution

Is this something people believe in?

It makes sense to me
Yes that is a very common view of evolution, ………….
It is widely accepted among biologists that evolution as proposed by Darwin (random variation + natural selection) is insufficient to explain all the data (increase in complexity for example)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No.

I want to take a step forward to understanding consciousness and how it affects "evolution" and experiment.

Just saying science is right (or mebbe a little wrong and getting less wrong) is the position of a priest or a believer. It is not a scientific perspective.
There is currently no scientific evidence of consciousness affecting evolution that I am aware of. Such a discovery would be a major scientific coup so I am pretty sure that there is no such evidence.

If you want to discover it you would first need to be able to discuss how you would test your idea:

What reasonable test could show you to be wrong?

Until you can answer that question you cannot even begin to have evidence for your idea.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I want to take a step forward to understanding consciousness and how it affects "evolution" and experiment.

You are more then welcome to investigate the matter and publish a paper on the topic.

But until you do the work, there is nothing there but your mere beliefs.
Surely you don't expect us, or anyone else, to "just believe you", right?
Surely you understand who you are required to do the work first so that you can actually demonstrate your case.

Just saying science is right (or mebbe a little wrong and getting less wrong) is the position of a priest or a believer

Indeed.
This is why scientists have to do the work to make their case and publish their methods and data, just like everyone else.


It is not a scientific perspective.

Indeed, bare assertions that need to be "just believed" is not a scientific perspective.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
No, they vote on it after the the top of the pecking order tells them how to vote.

Delusional.

All scientists pretty much agree on everything and this especially applies to the soft "sciences".

LOL! No, they don't.
They agree on those things that are sufficiently demonstrated only. Like relativity, germ theory, evolution theory, plate tectonics,...
At the frontier of scientific discovery, there are only open questions and rivaling hypothesis. Like abiogenesis, the origins of the universe, how to unify quantum physics with classical physics, etc

If I provide examples you'll ignore it and persist in your beliefs.

:rolleyes:

Try me.

I'm sure you can point to mistakes being made. Nobody claims the process is perfect.
In fact, peer review and journals exists precisely because it is recognized that the process isn't perfect. And it's mostly the human ingredient that makes it not perfect.

Peer review isn't restricted to the initial review of a submitted paper where it is decided to publish it or not you know... after it gets published, scientists all over the world review it, double and tripple check it and build further upon it.

This is how science is self-correcting.
If a mistake slips through the entire thing, sooner or later it will get exposed because further research will be working upon a false framework. This is exactly what happened with Newtonian physics. It's what happens every time progress is made, unless it consists of a brand new discovered phenomena for which no previous explanation (or even question) existed.

Yes!!! By George I think you have it finally. Experiment always trumps belief and opinion is always irrelevant.

Yes.

Peer review is irrelevant.

Peer review is how mistakes are discovered.
Without peer review, nobody would come up with additional evidence to show how a proposed idea is incorrect.

Suppose you do an experiment, draw a conclusion and publish your results.
Suppose your experiment was inadequate. Or suppose that in other circumstances, your conclusion no longer works.

How is this going to be discovered / known, if nobody else (peers) reviews your methods, your experiment, repeats your experiment or does additional experiments to further test your conclusion?

That's what peer review is.

There is no alternative for thinking for oneself. If I invent experiment and don't tell anybody the experiment STILL EXISTS.

And if your experiment is fundamentally flawed without you realizing it, how will you ever know if you don't share it with peers who might notice it?


If I create upside down flies and you ignore it they still exist. If a Peer learns something I don't know, it still real even after I don't know it. How can you not understand this? The problem is groupthink. The problem is lack of understanding of metaphysics. The problem is most scientists and most laymen are now engaged not in true science but in a religion characterized by Look and See Science.

I can't make sense of this drivel.

Why don;'t you understand that if something is shown by experiment it is real and if something isn't shown by experiment it is a belief.

I do understand that.
Which is why I said that one should not "simply believe" people on their word.
It's also why I said that the only real authority in science, insofar as there is an authority, is evidence / data.

You believe consciousness doesn't matter to "evolution"

No. That's a bad formulation.
Instead: I don't believe that it DOES matter to evolution.
And the reason I don't believe it, is because there is no evidence to support such.


but to you "evolution" is just another sacrament or belief to be adopted to show your devoutness.

No. I accept evolution as the best explanation for the origins of species due to the overwhelming evidence in support of the idea.

It's the same reason why I accept relativity, germ theory, plate tectonics, atomic theory, etc.


It doesn't matter if this "theory" is founded in experiment or not because you believe in it.

False. The fact that this theory is founded in experiment and data is the ONLY reason I accept it.

OK, look. Your post isn't really all that bad. There's a lot of truth to your words but the problem is you can see none of the truth in my words. Sure, science in practice is often a collaborative affair and every individual is capable of misthinking experiment or its results. But you don't seem to understand committees and groups are FAR MORE LIKELY to misthink something than an individual. Juries convict or exonerate because a strong personality can take over or a strange idea might get accepted by all. Intelligence levels plummet when people get together. We live in a strange new world where nobody seems to understand anything going on and lobbyists tell Congress what laws to pass. Data are continually being misconstrued and misinterpreted. Peers will not defend their beliefs and suppress data that don't conform.

Your comparisons between science and lawmakers, are invalid.
Science (or peer review) isn't done by popular vote or based in "opinion".

Meanwhile millions coming out of schools can't even read and millions more think Peer review is part of the scientific method

Peer review is factually part of the scientific method.
So much so that science can't be done without it.
If nobody communicates their results, then nobody can double check their work nor can anyone build upon it to progress further (either by building upon it further, or by showing it to be incorrect, or both).

All this is part of peer review.

There isn't even such a thing as "evolution"

Keep dreaming.

The fact that we know species change does not prove they evolve.

/facepalm

That's like saying "just because things fall down does not prove that they fall down".
Evolution literally is about species changing over time.


Calling it "evolution" is simply a circular argument. Calling gravity a "theory" doesn't mean we understand anything about it.

Please learn some basic scientific jargon and what the term "theory" means in science.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
It simply would never occur to most people today that science could be wrong about anything at all.

Where do you get nonsense like this?
Science is wrong all the time and everyone who understands how science actually works, knows this.

As Lawrence Krauss once said: I can come up with 100 hypothesis and 99 of time will likely turn out to be wrong - and that's okay.

When Einstein came up with relativity, he showed Newton wrong.

It has become the most dangerous religion in human history and it will be a minor miracle if it doesn't cause an extinction of the human race.

lol, wut???????????

Why do you invent nonsense out of thin air and fail to address a single point?

Says the guy who invents nonsense out of thin air.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
If you want to discover it you would first need to be able to discuss how you would test your idea:

Wow!!!

You are suggesting that science is in such a sad state it can't be fixed unless I am able to define, measure, and calibrate consciousness among and between all individuals and species!!!!

If science is this far wrong then it must be just abandoned altogether.

Rather than chuck the baby out with the bathwater I am merely suggesting we start work on "consciousness".

What I've been trying to get across to believers in science is that we can't solve this problem through a reductionistic approach. When you reduce consciousness to the brain you are not only killing it but you're looking in all the wrong places because only a part of it resides in the brain as proven by the simple fact that not all species even have a "brain".


I don't really need to prove consciousness affects what you call "evolution". It is simply axiomatic because it is observed every time a animal lives or dies which are the two states of all life (1 or 0); life or death. All change in species is by definition passed down by parents which also are always, always were, and always will be one or zero. Consciousness is what saves individuals from predation, starvation, and falling off cliffs. You might think it's big machines, the printing press, or fire that drives human "evolution" but this is simple nonsense. Individual consciousness invented the printing press and the first thing printed was not a Peer reviewed journal.

These concepts are very simple but I can be certain not one person will address a single one of them. Believers believe rather than understand. Believers believe only a reductionistic approach can be employed in definition, hypothesis, and experiment. They believe that you don't even need experiment if everyone agrees. So we have "evolution", "global warming", and "facilitators" to translate for the severely autistic. It's no matter we're wrong just so long as Peers agree. It's no matter Peers aren't allowed data because data might confuse them. It's no matter that anyone disagree because all the science is on one side.

At this rate "science" will become the last refuge of scoundrels. Maybe the "peers" should start cleaning up their acts and at least admit that modeling is not the same as experiment or understanding.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Wow!!!

You are suggesting that science is in such a sad state it can't be fixed unless I am able to define, measure, and calibrate consciousness among and between all individuals and species!!!!

Where did you get that from? Or are you just running away from the burden of proof. Let's see if my guess is right.

If science is this far wrong then it must be just abandoned altogether.

Again, please stop this nonsense. You are running away. Don't make up false claims, this does not help you.

Rather than chuck the baby out with the bathwater I am merely suggesting we start work on "consciousness".

What I've been trying to get across to believers in science is that we can't solve this problem through a reductionistic approach. When you reduce consciousness to the brain you are not only killing it but you're looking in all the wrong places because only a part of it resides in the brain as proven by the simple fact that not all species even have a "brain".

And no one has claimed that those species are conscious so how does that matter? Once again you are merely spouting nonsense that you are unwilling to support.

I don't really need to prove consciousness affects what you call "evolution". It is simply axiomatic because it is observed every time a animal lives or dies which are the two states of all life (1 or 0); life or death. All change in species is by definition passed down by parents which also are always, always were, and always will be one or zero. Consciousness is what saves individuals from predation, starvation, and falling off cliffs. You might think it's big machines, the printing press, or fire that drives human "evolution" but this is simple nonsense. Individual consciousness invented the printing press and the first thing printed was not a Peer reviewed journal.

Actually the burden of proof is always upon the person making the positive claim. You cannot even define what you mean by "consciousness" much less find any evidence for it. And one never gets to claim that an undefined concept is "axiomatic". Nice try but not even close.

These concepts are very simple but I can be certain not one person will address a single one of them. Believers believe rather than understand. Believers believe only a reductionistic approach can be employed in definition, hypothesis, and experiment. They believe that you don't even need experiment if everyone agrees. So we have "evolution", "global warming", and "facilitators" to translate for the severely autistic. It's no matter we're wrong just so long as Peers agree. It's no matter Peers aren't allowed data because data might confuse them. It's no matter that anyone disagree because all the science is on one side.

At this rate "science" will become the last refuge of scoundrels. Maybe the "peers" should start cleaning up their acts and at least admit that modeling is not the same as experiment or understanding.

Please do not terms that you do not understand. Just support your claims and tell us how you would test for your beliefs. If not you have nothing. No evidence, just wild handwaving. That is not going to convince any rational person.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Actually the burden of proof is always upon the person making the positive claim.

And your positive claim is that species change gradually through "survival of the fittest".

Not only is this mere poppycock but you have nothing, no experiment, and no observation to support it. It is merely an interpretation of fossil evidence.

I am telling you over and over that it is an INCORRECT INTERPRETATION and you continue to ignore the statement and the voluminous evidence I've presented to show it. You ignore the logic in my argument and continue to repeat beliefs.

You ASSUME there is some "degree of consciousness" but without even a definition for "consciousness" there can be no scientifically valid "degree of consciousness". It is mere opinion that a toad is one tenth as conscious as a dog and a dog is one tenth as conscious as a man. It is utter nonsense yet you and biologists persist in it without even acknowledging that it is nonsense or that I'm telling you it is nonsense.

You continue to ignore the argument and claim with no evidence of any sort that species don't live and die as a result and cause of consciousness.

Consciousness and life are the same thing or we end up at dead ends. AS I ALREADY explained it is most probably impossible to reduce consciousness to any common denominator than one or zero using our reductionistic science. This means we must either wait until it might become possible in a million years or we must add new science.

But in the meantime "survival of the fittest" is still nonsense that only a thinking human being might invent. These are the same human beings who believe "I think therefore I am". Guess what? You exist whether you think or not!!! And changes occurred in species long before Darwin incorrectly induced that species must change because he can kill off the weak. It is induction that is based on modern confused language that is the problem. You can correctly induce nothing at all because all induction by definition is circular reasoning. Like Freud's dreams induction is a window your own beliefs. Indeed, and ironically, the circularity works in a very similar way to the causes of dreams. They are both just random nerve firings in the brain that are partially processed.

The only solution to our necessity of circular reasoning is EXPERIMENT. NO, not "science". "Science has gone over to the dark side in most individuals and just as "species" doesn't really exist neither does "science". Abstraction doesn't exist in nature. It's a trick we use to increase communication and to lead us in circles.

Now without addressing a single point in this post you'll reduce it to words and respond with a semantical argument. You probably simply can't understand what I'm saying not because it's complex but it lies outside all your belief systems. You believe you are intelligent and it's my job to get through to you. There's no such thing as "intelligence" and it's the listener's job to try to parse the sentences correctly. You can't do this parsing because you believe I'm wrong about three things in every sentence. Rather than actually address the simple fact that a fox eating a rabbit was the result of two consciousnesses becoming one you'll ignore it or parse this very sentence in obscure and unintended ways.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
And your positive claim is that species change gradually through "survival of the fittest".

Let's ignore the phrase that you do not understand properly, but yes, I do accept the theory of evolution and it can be supported by massive and endless evidence.

Not only is this mere poppycock but you have nothing, no experiment, and no observation to support it. It is merely an interpretation of fossil evidence.

Okay, so you do not understand the concept of evidence. I was pretty sure that you did not understand that concept so I will offer to go over the concept of evidence first with you. Until you understand the concept of evidence you cannot recognize it when presented to you.

I am telling you over and over that it is an INCORRECT INTERPRETATION and you continue to ignore the statement and the voluminous evidence I've presented to show it. You ignore the logic in my argument and continue to repeat beliefs.

Yes, you make all sorts of silly unjustified claims. So what? You need to be able to support your claims for anyone to take you seriously. Of course when you make silly claims no one takes you seriously.

You ASSUME there is some "degree of consciousness" but without even a definition for "consciousness" there can be no scientifically valid "degree of consciousness". It is mere opinion that a toad is one tenth as conscious as a dog and a dog is one tenth as conscious as a man. It is utter nonsense yet you and biologists persist in it without even acknowledging that it is nonsense or that I'm telling you it is nonsense.

Nope, I do not do that. But it would be interesting to see you try to justify that claim. Did you forget already how your so called assumptions were all refuted, mainly by you?

You continue to ignore the argument and claim with no evidence of any sort that species don't live and die as a result and cause of consciousness.

What? There is no evidence for your claim so of course it is ignored. Please support your claim so that people can respond to it. Merely spouting nonsense only gets one laughed at.

Consciousness and life are the same thing or we end up at dead ends. AS I ALREADY explained it is most probably impossible to reduce consciousness to any common denominator than one or zero using our reductionistic science. This means we must either wait until it might become possible in a million years or we must add new science.

Again, more handwaving. Perhaps you have your own strange definition of "consciousness". From what I have seen consciousness is not necessary for life. Once again, your claim, your burden of proof.

But in the meantime "survival of the fittest" is still nonsense that only a thinking human being might invent. These are the same human beings who believe "I think therefore I am". Guess what? You exist whether you think or not!!! And changes occurred in species long before Darwin incorrectly induced that species must change because he can kill off the weak. It is induction that is based on modern confused language that is the problem. You can correctly induce nothing at all because all induction by definition is circular reasoning. Like Freud's dreams induction is a window your own beliefs. Indeed, and ironically, the circularity works in a very similar way to the causes of dreams. They are both just random nerve firings in the brain that are partially processed.

I doubt if you even understand "survival of the fittest" It is not a phrase that biologists use. Oh my! So many self contradictions.

The only solution to our necessity of circular reasoning is EXPERIMENT. NO, not "science". "Science has gone over to the dark side in most individuals and just as "species" doesn't really exist neither does "science". Abstraction doesn't exist in nature. It's a trick we use to increase communication and to lead us in circles.

Now without addressing a single point in this post you'll reduce it to words and respond with a semantical argument. You probably simply can't understand what I'm saying not because it's complex but it lies outside all your belief systems. You believe you are intelligent and it's my job to get through to you. There's no such thing as "intelligence" and it's the listener's job to try to parse the sentences correctly. You can't do this parsing because you believe I'm wrong about three things in every sentence. Rather than actually address the simple fact that a fox eating a rabbit was the result of two consciousnesses becoming one you'll ignore it or parse this very sentence in obscure and unintended ways.

Okay, enough nonsense. How would you demonstrate that your claims are correct? Now since you do not understand the concept of evidence, as you just demonstrated, you are unable to demand evidence until you understand the concept. Are you willing to discuss evidence?
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
...theory of evolution and it can be supported by massive and endless evidence.

Then why can't you show one single experiment that shows a gradual change in species just like the fossil record?

You are just assuming that an experiment that spanned millions of years would show it.

You have no evidence for a gradual change in species. I'm very sorry you don't and that the experiment is "impossible" to do but facts are facts and you have no facts, no evidence, and no experiment. You have only inductive reasoning.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Then why can't you show one single experiment that shows a gradual change in species just like the fossil record?

What makes you think that I cannot do that?

You are just assuming that an experiment that spanned millions of years would show it.

No, just because you do not understand something does not mean that others are assuming. In fact you have never shown anyone to assume anything yet. You have only claimed that people assume things.

You have no evidence for a gradual change in species. I'm very sorry you don't and that the experiment is "impossible" to do but facts are facts and you have no facts, no evidence, and no experiment. You have only inductive reasoning.


Of course I do. The problem is that you do not even understand what is and what is not evidence. So here is the definition of evidence. You probably will not understand it:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Yes that is a very common view of evolution, ………….
It is widely accepted among biologists that evolution as proposed by Darwin (random variation + natural selection) is insufficient to explain all the data (increase in complexity for example)

After all these years here at RF and other members correcting you, you still haven’t learned a damn thing.

You keep repeating the same silly mistakes, over and over again, leroy.

Clearly, you haven’t studied biology, and clearly you have read any of Darwin’s works.

Darwin has never proposed “random variation”, leroy.

The variation he write about isn’t “random”, but “variation through Natural Selection”.

You keep throwing the word “random” around...which is attacking strawman.

And there are mountains of evidence that support Natural Selection.

Sure, Darwin didn’t understand everything about Evolution (eg he he wasn’t aware of other evolutionary mechanisms like Genetic Drift and Mutation, because these were 20th century, but his framework in the Natural Selection is still very much valid today.

The differences between the original Natural Selection and our current knowledge of Natural Selection, is that any errors Darwin had made have been corrected by other biologists, AND the Natural Selection have been considerably expanded to include techniques of testings, eg DNA.

I think Darwin’s biggest weakness, was his knowledge in genetics.

Had Darwin known of his contemporary Gregor Mendel and his works in genetics, Natural Selection Evolution would even be more advanced, but you cannot fault Darwin for not knowing Mendel’s genetics.

In fact, Mendel’s theory and experiments weren’t understood by his contemporaries while he was alive, and his works were forgotten for decades, before some other biologists rediscovered his work in the early 20th century; and only then was Mendel’s genetics being accepted posthumously.
 
Last edited:

cladking

Well-Known Member
What makes you think that I cannot do that?



Instead of trying to get me to watch some video that does not support your argument why don't you tell me what you believe the video claims?

There is no support for a gradual change in species. If the video is support for the justification of the interpretation of fossil evidence it might be interesting enough to watch.

All observed change in all species at every level is sudden. This is a fact but "survival of the fittest" is an opinion. You need to support your belief.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Instead of trying to get me to watch some video that does not support your argument why don't you tell me what you believe the video claims?

There is no support for a gradual change in species. If the video is support for the justification of the interpretation of fossil evidence it might be interesting enough to watch.

All observed change in all species at every level is sudden. This is a fact but "survival of the fittest" is an opinion. You need to support your belief.
But it does support my argument. That video demonstrates a gradual change in species. There are other examples too. But until you learn what is and what is not evidence there is no point in presenting them to you.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
But it does support my argument. That video demonstrates a gradual change in species. There are other examples too. But until you learn what is and what is not evidence there is no point in presenting them to you.

I don't know why I bothered to watch it since there was no chance of any kind that it would support your argument of gradual change in species. I believe this lack of support for "evolution" is caused by the simple fact that this is NOT how species change. Just like a two minute video showing a simple species changing in 11 days ALL CHANGE IN SPECIES IS SUDDEN. This is simple enough; there is virtually no gradual change in most species because all individuals are fit but every individual is different so different individuals have a better chance of success under different conditions.

Why is the meaning of these words invisible to believers in "science"? Why can't a believer even see this argument, far less address it?
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
I doubt if you even understand "survival of the fittest" It is not a phrase that biologists use. Oh my! So many self contradictions.

It simply doesn't matter what words you use. Words are just going to be interpreted differently by every reader anyway. "Only the fit survive" is no more or no less nonsensical than "species evolve because individual which are less adaptable are less likely to reproduce". The first statement in no more right or wrong than the second because they are equally false. No matter how you say "evolution is survival of the fittest" is false and largely because "evolution" doesn't even exist. Species do not evolve through any means at all; they change. And all change is sudden like a volcano rather than plate movement.

I've cited extensive evidence and logic over the years to support this but it is all simply ignored while believers turn to opinion and extrapolation of irrelevancies. You have no evidence for "evolution" because all of the evidence supports my theory. This doesn't prove you are wrong, merely that the "theory" of evolution" is a belief. I literally believe the belief in "guided species change" makes more sense than "evolution". But there are many possibilities in between and at right angles.

I suppose we can agree a great deal of change in species is the result of sudden mutations. I doubt we'll agree on the cause of these mutations. You believe in random chance whereas I rarely do.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I don't know why I bothered to watch it since there was no chance of any kind that it would support your argument of gradual change in species. I believe this lack of support for "evolution" is caused by the simple fact that this is NOT how species change. Just like a two minute video showing a simple species changing in 11 days ALL CHANGE IN SPECIES IS SUDDEN. This is simple enough; there is virtually no gradual change in most species because all individuals are fit but every individual is different so different individuals have a better chance of success under different conditions.

Why is the meaning of these words invisible to believers in "science"? Why can't a believer even see this argument, far less address it?
Okay, it is obvious that you did not understand the video. You do not understand evolution. Nor do you even understand evidence.

Since you need to understand the concept of evidence to understand anything let's discuss that first. Once you understand the concept of evidence then you can demand evidence.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It simply doesn't matter what words you use. Words are just going to be interpreted differently by every reader anyway. "Only the fit survive" is no more or no less nonsensical than "species evolve because individual which are less adaptable are less likely to reproduce". The first statement in no more right or wrong than the second because they are equally false. No matter how you say "evolution is survival of the fittest" is false and largely because "evolution" doesn't even exist. Species do not evolve through any means at all; they change. And all change is sudden like a volcano rather than plate movement.

I've cited extensive evidence and logic over the years to support this but it is all simply ignored while believers turn to opinion and extrapolation of irrelevancies. You have no evidence for "evolution" because all of the evidence supports my theory. This doesn't prove you are wrong, merely that the "theory" of evolution" is a belief. I literally believe the belief in "guided species change" makes more sense than "evolution". But there are many possibilities in between and at right angles.

I suppose we can agree a great deal of change in species is the result of sudden mutations. I doubt we'll agree on the cause of these mutations. You believe in random chance whereas I rarely do.
No. You have not cited one shred of evidence. You keep forgetting that you do not understand the concept. And it does not appear that logic is in your toolbox.

Once again we need to discuss the concept of evidence before we do anything else.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Obviously none of my points will be addressed.

Nobody will even comment on the simple fact that even the word "evolution" is a circular argument. "Evolution" does not drive "change in species". All change in life is sudden and no evidence for gradual change exists. Darwin looked at fossils and saw "evolution" but this revolutionary circular argument was simply wrong and it was highly unscientific. It is Look and See Science at its worst and nobody ever bothered to call him on it.

More than 150 years of science has failed to show any significant gradual change in species. Perhaps it would be found if anyone looked for it since several possible means exist, but we rarely try to prove our assumptions and "evolution" is an assumption. It is a foundational assumption so goes unchallenged and untested.
 
Top