The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[TagliatelliMonster]

Would you care to learn what scientific evidence is?

No. Not at all. Please don't.

the fact is that all of the scientific evidence supports slow and gradual change.

Then why can't you produce one shred of evidence or cite a shred of evidence to support your beliefs?

Who else thinks this would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad?

I think it's becoming clear why @cladking isn't capable of recognizing all the evidence he is getting in response to his requests, as evidence.............................................

Spoiler alert; It's because you can't and you can't because this isn't how change in species occurs.

No. It's because, as per your own acknowledgement, you refuse to learn what evidence is.

This is just ridiculous.

 

[cladking]

Do you make it up on the spot or is there some silly website that's lying to you?

I've been making it all up for many decades.

I take observation, deductive logic, experimental interpretation and come up with hypotheses that I test through experiment and check against anecdotal evidence and facts of every type. The exact recipe is proprietary but I really have no secrets and have said it all before. You simply can't see it through your beliefs.

Only since incorporating a second metaphysics in the last decade have I come to "believe" that religion is founded in science but homo omnisciencis is highly mystical and even the finest scientists have mystical aspects to their thinking. It is very difficult to think any thought that doesn't have mystical characteristics. We think in language/ our consciousness occurs in language/ and language is illogical. In all other animals consciousness is the same thing as logic itself and this is how it serves to protect the individual and cause change in "species".

 

[cladking]

No. It's because, as per your own acknowledgement, you refuse to learn what evidence is.

More nonsense. I merely said I didn't want a believer in science telling me what "evidence" is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've been making it all up for many decades.

It shows.

 

[cladking]

More nonsense. I merely said I didn't want a believer in science telling me what "evidence" is.

You're free to do it if you want but the subject here is "evolution" so I may or may not point out the flaws in your definitions. "Believers" only accept those facts which support their beliefs and are blind to all others.

For instance you still think that the sudden and gradual changes in e coli in the "long term" experiment are not the result of changes to the media and are relevant to "whales" losing their legs. There's nothing I can say that will shake your beliefs because facts that don't fit them are ignored. My words are parsed until they are gobbledty gook.

 

[cladking]

It shows.

Thank you very very much.

Many aspects of my theory are certainly "unique" so I was surprised you'd even ask.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thank you very very much.

Many aspects of my theory are certainly "unique" so I was surprised you'd even ask.

I don't think you understood what I meant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

More nonsense. I merely said I didn't want a believer in science telling me what "evidence" is.

Nope, you regularly demonstrate that you do not understand the concept of evidence. By the way what the heck is a "believer in science"? Do you mean a believer in reality? Then I am guilty of that. If it was anything else it appears that you just broke the rules of the forum.

 

[Valjean]

You believe and interpret every experiment to mean that species change gradually based on "fitness" and that consciousness has no bearing on how these changes occur.

Rates of speciation vary hugely. Some 'designs' remain unchanged for millions of years, others change within a human lifetime. If you understood the mechanisms of change and what factors influence it, you'd understand why this would be the case.

The Bible emphasizes suddenness, behavior, and the choices made by individuals. This is the ancient understanding of "evolution" based on 40,000 years of science. Ironically enough that science was always perfectly matched to its metaphysics while modern science went off the beam in the 19th century.

What is this Neanderthal science you speak of? What does "perfectly matched to its metaphysics" mean? and how did modern science go off the beam?
Truth and reality haven't changed. Metaphysics hasn't changed, and, till recently, humans had no understanding of these, only folklore and religious mythology.

There was no ancient understanding of evolution, and real, experimental science is a new thing.

The Bible and the ancient writing from which it is derived is probably far closer to many truths than modern science.

Please name a few of these truths, within science's magisterium.

 

[Valjean]

Every experiment ever performed shows all change in all life at all levels is sudden. This includes a few experiments I performed myself and reported and many I cited. Meanwhile I get vague references to e coli, whale fins, and ring species in return. None of these show what they are purported to show. The meaning of all these is either not experimental, not relevant, or open to interpretation.

Please give some examples of some of these experiments, and explain why you disbelieve the abundant fossil and genetic evidence of evolution.

 

[gnostic]

These are mere words. There's no such thing as species then how can there be great apes or any other kind?

All life is individual. All life is consciousness.

First.

How do you define “consciousness”?

Second.

Plants, fungi, bacteria and archaea are all living organisms, hence they have life. Each of them have cells that have some sort of physiological functions, each have the abilities to reproduce in some ways, as well as pass genetic traits to offspring/descendants.

Can you demonstrate the species of each these are “conscious” in separate “experiments”?

You are the one with a very limited view as to what “experiment” is, and warped view of what “science” is - then please, show experimental tests of each of these (“these” as in bacteria, archaea, fungi and plants) are “conscious”.

I have asked for experiments from you, EVIDENCE, and not some sorts of metaphysical mumbo-jumbo BS.

If experiments are the only way to demonstrate concepts to be scientific, then I want EXPERIMENTS that these organisms possessed consciousness from you...without evasive excuses from you.

Third.

When you have done that, provided test results that each of these organisms, then I want you to show MORE EXPERIMENTS that these experiments and knowledge were done by people from 40,000 years ago.

And since you are the one who brought up the people who wrote the Bible possess more knowledge than modern biologists, then please show where the Bible have done scientific experiments that organisms possess “consciousness”.

You did write this:

This is the ancient understanding of "evolution" based on 40,000 years of science. Ironically enough that science was always perfectly matched to its metaphysics while modern science went off the beam in the 19th century.

The Bible and the ancient writing from which it is derived is probably far closer to many truths than modern science.

Prove what you have claimed.

I think when you are going to make extraordinary claims about prehistoric people and biblical authors possessed extraordinary knowledge about nature, then please demonstrate that they have done such experiments.

If you cannot show experiments performed by biblical authors and by prehistoric people, then you shouldn’t make exaggerated claims about them.

 

[paarsurrey]

The Believability of Evolution
To understand creation/evolution correctly, one may like to read my post #297 in another thread. Agree/disagree, please?

my post #297 in another thread:

I do understand, that the Creator G-d set a system/process for everything to evolve, and lo it started evolving and hence the "evolution" , please? Right?

Regards

 

[gnostic]

I do understand, that the Creator G-d set a system/process for everything to evolve, and lo it started evolving and hence the "evolution" , please? Right?

That the same old backwards, “God did it” superstition, of people who don’t understand WHAT “nature” is or HOW “nature” works.

Superstitions are only for people who are too lazy to the works, of observing nature and the natural processes, and have given up thinking logically...so the easiest thing to do, is to rely on archaic “God did it” superstitions.