New To Forum
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-05-2015, 10:11 PM
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 03:56 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 03:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Evolution is no longer "Darwinism". It no longer rests on anything he said or did. It's been proven in countless ways and countless times since he died by other major scientists. Calling it "Darwinism" just demonstrates your ignorant bias. But thanks for the opportunity. You examples of why Evolution might be wrong are completely absurd and have been proven so by reputable scientists. I will demonstrate that all your criticisms are utterly false.

I have to admit I used 'Darwinism' on purpose.

Because you're an asshole? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 10:12 PM
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 04:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 04:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You're on. I will. (In a bit).
1. It's not "random mutatuion". As usual, someone so ignorant of math and Probability and Genetics uses words like that as it looks improbable. One a process is begun, the next step is not really any longer (really) "random", (which you would know had you ever actually studied math, Genetics or Probability Theory), or watch the videos.

Tell that to Daniel Dennet:

"Evolution is all about processes that almost never happen. Every birth in every lineage is a potential speciation event, but speciation almost never happens, not once in a million births. Mutation in DNA almost never happens—not once in a trillion copyings—but evolution depends on it. Take the set of infrequent accidents— things that almost never happen—and sort them into the happy ac- cidents, the neutral accidents, and the fatal accidents; amplify the effects of the happy accidents—which happens automatically when you have replication and competition—and you get evolution." -Breaking the Spell

You apparently don't have the faintest clue what Dennett's point was.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
18-05-2015, 10:17 PM
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 06:28 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  What you have presented is not a fact but a hypothesis. Speculation of a theiretical scientific model. What I am looking for is facts not possibilities.

I asked you to shiw how mutation can be responsible for whole creatures? Evolution is inadequate to show such a thing. The scope of mutation has not been demonstrated as being all encompassing of all organisms. It is limited and your youtube videos do not show otherwise.

This is apart from the serious problem of the Cambrian Explosion.

DNA is responsible for whole creatures. Mutations to DNA are responsible for changes.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
18-05-2015, 11:49 PM
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 03:54 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 03:47 PM)morondog Wrote:  Your personal incredulity does not an argument make Drinking Beverage

Edit: I've bolded your unsupported statements.

I stand by that. My claim: random mutation does not account for building complex creaures.

Fossil finds in comparison to the number of creatures makes it mathematically improbable.

Cambrian explosion is a gaping problem. Even Richard admits it.

Prove me wrong.

Kid, you admitted you're looking to explore evolution further. i.e. you are no expert. But now you're already disagreeing with experts in the field *when you don't even know what you're talking about*.

You say for example that "random mutation does not account for building complex creatures" and I say that's an unsupported assertion - you haven't backed it up with anything, you just flat out stated it. I'm not even sure that evolution theory says anything precisely like this - afaik the idea is that mutation, natural selection and a couple of other factors account for "building complex creatures". Even if it did, and your statement *was* in fact true, we'd modify the theory Smile That's the great joy of science. We're not bound to accept any particular explanation.

It's as if we're two schmucks sitting under a bridge and you're saying to me "The F16 fighter will never fly. The area of the wings doesn't generate enough lift. By the way, I know fuck all about aerodynamics." Can you see why even though *I* don't claim to know a lot about aerodynamics, I'd still laugh at your statement?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
19-05-2015, 12:24 AM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2015 12:31 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 06:06 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  Yes scientific papers and appeal to authority can be cited, but evolution cannot explain how whole organisms were formed. I'm not saying the alternative is religion. Just saying evolution is incomplete.


About that Appeal to Authority.

A logically valid argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of one or more authoritative source(s), whose opinions are likely to be true on the relevant issue.

A logically fallacious argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of a source that is not authoritative. Sources could be non-authoritative because of their personal bias, their disagreement with consensus on the issue, their non-expertise in the relevant issue, or a number of other issues. (Often, this is called an appeal to authority, rather than argument from authority.)

Almost any subject has an authority on every side of the argument, even where there is generally agreed to be no argument.


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority


So citing the consensus of trained experts in the field is valid, unless you're proposing some reason to cast doubt on the validity of the entire field of study.


Evolution can and does explain complex organisms. All explanations in science are however tentative, they're all dependent upon the evidence, and the state of the evidence can change and shift with our expanding understanding.

However claiming that "evolution cannot explain how whole organisms were formed" is a baseless assertion. Even if it could not now (and it does, you just lack the education and understating to grasp that), there would be nothing stopping us from finding out in the future.

That being said, your personal incredulity and lack of imagination is evidence for fuck all, let alone disproving a century and a half of evolutionary theory and a mountain of evidence in support thereof.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like EvolutionKills's post
19-05-2015, 12:40 AM
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 06:06 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  Anyone with basic science will know its mainly filling gaps. I'm not filling the gap with god but say: A- the evoltution model, as a whole, not valid, parts makes no sense and B- the whole theory, not valid parts, has very little evidence.

Yes scientific papers and appeal to authority can be cited, but evolution cannot explain how whole organisms were formed. I'm not saying the alternative is religion. Just saying evolution is incomplete.

Are you just trying to state that, in a very roundabout way, you accept "microevolution" but not "macroevolution"? The terms are in quotes for a reason.

Using Tapatalk
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TubbyTubby's post
19-05-2015, 12:53 AM
RE: New To Forum
(19-05-2015 12:40 AM)TubbyTubby Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 06:06 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  Anyone with basic science will know its mainly filling gaps. I'm not filling the gap with god but say: A- the evoltution model, as a whole, not valid, parts makes no sense and B- the whole theory, not valid parts, has very little evidence.

Yes scientific papers and appeal to authority can be cited, but evolution cannot explain how whole organisms were formed. I'm not saying the alternative is religion. Just saying evolution is incomplete.

Are you just trying to state that, in a very roundabout way, you accept "microevolution" but not "macroevolution"? The terms are in quotes for a reason.


There is no fundamental difference between the two, both are examples of descent with modification. The arbitrary line of delineation is change within a species, and speciation itself; but it is those very changes within a species that give rise to speciation. We know, we've seen it happen, and documented the shit out of it. There is no reason (and nothing creationist have ever substantiated, they only assert without evidence) to draw an arbitrary line and say that changes can happen within a species, but you can never accumulate enough to generate new species. Once again, they can and do, and we've seen it happen already.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 12:54 AM
RE: New To Forum
(19-05-2015 12:53 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(19-05-2015 12:40 AM)TubbyTubby Wrote:  Are you just trying to state that, in a very roundabout way, you accept "microevolution" but not "macroevolution"? The terms are in quotes for a reason.


There is no fundamental difference between the two, both are examples of descent with modification. The arbitrary line of delineation is change within a species, and speciation itself; but it is those very changes within a species that give rise to speciation. We know, we've seen it happen, and documented the shit out of it. There is no reason (and nothing creationist have ever substantiated, they only assert without evidence) to draw an arbitrary line and say that changes can happen within a species, but you can never accumulate enough to generate new species. Once again, they can and do, and we've seen it happen already.
I know. I was trying to clarify the OPs muddy position.

Using Tapatalk
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 01:11 AM
RE: New To Forum
(19-05-2015 12:54 AM)TubbyTubby Wrote:  I know. I was trying to clarify the OPs muddy position.

I figured as much, I was just jumping the gun cause I'm bored.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 06:30 AM
RE: New To Forum
I will be back once I've read the books recommended and watched tge videos. In the mean time whats your opinion on Michael Dennet's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: