Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

[Hockeycowboy]

What was that sound?

I know I know!

GOAL POSTS BEING MOVED.

So precious...

No... I don’t believe I did. Every time I mentioned precursors in this thread, I used either the adjective “obvious” or “unambiguous.”

You are mistaken.

 

[Jose Fly]

No... I don’t believe I did. Every time I mentioned precursors in this thread, I used either the adjective “obvious” or “unambiguous.”

"Obvious" or "unambiguous" according to who?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

"Obvious" or "unambiguous" according to who?

“During the Cambrian period, there was an unparalleled explosion of life, as many of the major groups of organisms or "phyla" emerged suddenly, in most cases without evident precursors. ....This radiation of animal phyla is referred to as the Cambrian explosion. In the 500 million years since the Cambrian, no fundamentally new body plan has emerged (Mayr 2001). These factors lead to the Cambrian representing a major evolutionary enigma.”

Source is Cambrian - New World Encyclopedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

“During the Cambrian period, there was an unparalleled explosion of life, as many of the major groups of organisms or "phyla" emerged suddenly, in most cases without evident precursors. ....This radiation of animal phyla is referred to as the Cambrian explosion. In the 500 million years since the Cambrian, no fundamentally new body plan has emerged (Mayr 2001). These factors lead to the Cambrian representing a major evolutionary enigma.”

Source is Cambrian - New World Encyclopedia

That source is out of date by quite a few years. We may not know exactly which life forms were the precursors of specific phyla, but there are obvious precursors.

Do you know why we can't really tell? Think about it for a little bit. You should be able to figure it out.

 

[oldbadger]

Respecting the New Synthesis
“Since the last major theoretical integration in evolutionary biology—the modern synthesis (MS) of the 1940s—the biosciences have made significant advances..... Some of these results are in agreement with the standard theory and others reveal different properties of the evolutionary process.” (!!)..................

Thankyou for the above info.
I'm not surprised. The process of evolution seems to be 'what ever can benefit out of chaos' and so I guess that some surges just have to wait for 'chance' to come along.

And that's going to mash up any 'fixed' ideas about anything. It also mangles minds that think that they know it all about how mankind (or anything else) developed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thankyou for the above info.
I'm not surprised. The process of evolution seems to be 'what ever can benefit out of chaos' and so I guess that some surges just have to wait for 'chance' to come along.

And that's going to mash up any 'fixed' ideas about anything. It also mangles minds that think that they know it all about how mankind (or anything else) developed.

How does @Hockeycowboy 's poor understanding of the Modern Synthesis help you in your science denial?

 

[oldbadger]

You got it! You finally really got it! Congratulations.

Thankyou for your patronising praise.

Here is what YOU wrote. I added emphasis because you may not even realize the significance of what you, yourself, actually stated.

Yeah......now let's look at the real you, eh?

So...... yeah..... there are missing links alright, and we just can't fill the gaps at this time.

You've let yourself down quite a bit here.
You think you're clever, but all that you have shown to objective readers is that you have decided upon an outcome before it has happened.
You couldn't have known it, but that is a subjective mindset, and as such is a typical example of the pseudo-science that I've been discussing with @Deeje and @Hockeycowboy.

That ain't science, Ecco...... it's subjective pseudo-science. Looks like you've joined my P-S club, right there, .at this time.

 

[oldbadger]

How does @Hockeycowboy 's poor understanding of the Modern Synthesis help you in your science denial?

It appears to me that @Hockeycowboyuch is challenging the Modern Synthesis, which puts him in a queue together with a number of specialists who also seem to have questions and criticisms.

Now I can't expect you to have known anything about this, nor to have any idea about who has challenged and how, so if you need some help with all this, please just come back and tell us that you didn't realise about all this and ask for any additional details, and I'll do my best to dig out any that I can.

 

[Audie]

Thankyou for the above info.
I'm not surprised. The process of evolution seems to be 'what ever can benefit out of chaos' and so I guess that some surges just have to wait for 'chance' to come along.

And that's going to mash up any 'fixed' ideas about anything. It also mangles minds that think that they know it all about how mankind (or anything else) developed.

The creationist- fixed ideas were mashed up long ago,
though the body twtiches yet, like some shameful
electrified corpse.

 

[Audie]

“During the Cambrian period, there was an unparalleled explosion of life, as many of the major groups of organisms or "phyla" emerged suddenly, in most cases without evident precursors. ....This radiation of animal phyla is referred to as the Cambrian explosion. In the 500 million years since the Cambrian, no fundamentally new body plan has emerged (Mayr 2001). These factors lead to the Cambrian representing a major evolutionary enigma.”

Source is Cambrian - New World Encyclopedia

So if you accept this as accurate,you accept it that
the biblical account is bs.

Welcome to the 19th century! May you continue
on the path of enlightenment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It appears to me that @Hockeycowboyuch is challenging the Modern Synthesis, which puts him in a queue together with a number of specialists who also seem to have questions and criticisms.

Now I can't expect you to have known anything about this, nor to have any idea about who has challenged and how, so if you need some help with all this, please just come back and tell us that you didn't realise about all this and ask for any additional details, and I'll do my best to dig out any that I can.

No, it puts him in queue with loons and science deniers. No one has done any serious work threatening the concept of evolution.

I know far more about this than you do. You keep forgetting that you do not even know what science is in the first place. Once again, would you like to go over the basics? I can help you with the concepts.

 

[Audie]

No, it puts him in queue with loons and science deniers.
(puts him in a queue together with a number of specialists who also seem to have questions and criticisms.)

No one has done any serious work threatening the concept of evolution.

It certainly is a vast stretch to try to draw some
sort of equivalence between the "it is all
satan-driven lies" creationist "questions"
and the work of actual researchers.

 

[metis]

Your wife seems wise.

I doubt that you know the entire story.

I don't have to but I know the gist of it, especially since we were friends and talked a lot over the years they lived next to us, including them staying at our place in the U.P. for several days. The husband I knew even more so as we go back 45 years ago.

I do know quite a bit about the JW's, but I doubt very much you knew my neighbors and what they went through. I know what prompted the wife to begin questioning what she had been taught; I know the anguish she and her husband went through, especially since his father was an elder at their kingdom hall; and I know why she felt she needed to file for divorce.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And still, cannot account for all the evidence, such as instinct, or symbiosis between unrelated organisms. Hence, the need for a New Synthesis, as it’s called.


When I use quotes, I’ve provided the source. And I haven’t twisted the author’s meaning. I specifically asked those that think I have, to prove it: to show that the writer’s meaning regarding that particular topic was altered by my quote of their statement. No one has.
Respecting the New Synthesis (@Deeje , @nPeace , @oldbadger , you guys might like this):

“Since the last major theoretical integration in evolutionary biology—the modern synthesis (MS) of the 1940s—the biosciences have made significant advances..... Some of these results are in agreement with the standard theory and others reveal different properties of the evolutionary process.” (!!)

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5566817/pdf/rsfs20170015.pdf

They just can’t state some results ‘disagree with the MS’....they have to word it without raising consternation...”reveal different properties.” Lol.

The article is interesting, I thought.
The ToE itself is going through some drastic ‘evolving’....with intelligent help.

I have done this. I have seen others do this. Like, just a day or two ago (with the Stephen Jay Gould quote!).

Why can't you just correct your obvious error? It's okay, we all make mistakes sometimes.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's always heartwarming to me when I come on the site after a night's rest (on the other side of the world) to pages of responses.....literally pages...and post after desperate post from the same people.....'methinks thou all protesteth too much'......

As I read through, I see this pressing need on the part of the science buffs to shoot down by any means, what has been said against their 'religion' (or should I say, their 'belief system'?) Could it be that some of the things said by the creationists might ring true with the readers here.....why else would the responses be so terse and intense.....and for the most part personally insulting? Nothing changes in these responses except the posters...the content is exactly the same. You don't even know that the macro version of evolution is even possible...because you have no verifiable evidence to corroborate it. You assume it must have happened because evolution has to be true. (there can be no other explanation!) I don't believe it is, and neither do millions of others who see intelligent design everywhere in nature. The very same evidence presented for evolution, is just as convincing for ID in creation in our opinion. Even many scientists agree.
Most evolutionists steer clear of abiogenesis.....for obvious reasons.

Consider this:
Researchers have recreated in the laboratory the environmental conditions that they believe existed early in the earth’s history. In these experiments, a few scientists have manufactured some of the molecules found in living things....correct?

But.....If the chemicals in the experiment represent the earth’s early environment, and the molecules produced represent the building blocks of life, who or what does the scientist who performed the experiment represent? Does he or she represent blind chance or an intelligent entity?

Science's "overwhelming evidence" is only "overwhelming" to you guys. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans to us. It relies on faith, not facts and has holes you could walk a T-Rex through.....none of it is based on anything verifiable, but on assumptions.....detailed diagrams that are also based solely on inference and suggestion......and fossils that cannot speak, but are given a voice like a ventriloquist's dummy.....guess who the ventriloquist is?

Why this intense level of desperation.......? Put down your weapons.....

You not only flatter yourself too much but are seemingly incapable of correcting your errors.
And for some reason you're still conflating abiogenesis with evolution. At least Kent Hovind might be proud, I guess.

 

[Jose Fly]

“During the Cambrian period, there was an unparalleled explosion of life, as many of the major groups of organisms or "phyla" emerged suddenly, in most cases without evident precursors. ....This radiation of animal phyla is referred to as the Cambrian explosion. In the 500 million years since the Cambrian, no fundamentally new body plan has emerged (Mayr 2001). These factors lead to the Cambrian representing a major evolutionary enigma.”

Source is Cambrian - New World Encyclopedia

Um.....you didn't answer the question. And you didn't answer the other question I asked you earlier about what your point is in noting that evolutionary theory isn't absolute and perfect.

Care to try again (or for the first time)?

 

[Jose Fly]

No, it puts him in queue with loons and science deniers. No one has done any serious work threatening the concept of evolution.

I know far more about this than you do. You keep forgetting that you do not even know what science is in the first place. Once again, would you like to go over the basics? I can help you with the concepts.

It appears at this point that @oldbadger isn't even pretending to be here to discuss or even debate anything; rather he's just going to throw rocks and mock from the sidelines and ignore most of what's posted to him.

Oh well.....

 

[oldbadger]

The creationist- fixed ideas were mashed up long ago,
though the body twtiches yet, like some shameful
electrified corpse.

Yuk!
Have you been watching too many horror movies?!!

 

[oldbadger]

No, it puts him in queue with loons and science deniers. No one has done any serious work threatening the concept of evolution.

I know far more about this than you do. You keep forgetting that you do not even know what science is in the first place. Once again, would you like to go over the basics? I can help you with the concepts.

Ha ha ha!
Another expert...... Another impost, perhaps?

 

[oldbadger]

It appears at this point that @oldbadger isn't even pretending to be here to discuss or even debate anything; rather he's just going to throw rocks and mock from the sidelines and ignore most of what's posted to him.

Oh well.....

Nice rock, that one you just chucked!
Lousy for accuracy, though.