Evolution and Creationism

[buffalo]

Looking forward to your next linked article.

I will glady keep those pesky creationist site articles coming, from the likes of nature, scientific american, sciencedaily, cell, royal society, original papers among others.

 

[buffalo]

This is your main point. That one works but the other doesn’t. You need to address this.

Can easily flip this back onto you and for many years has been an epic fail. Evolution is a degradatory process. It is following the 2nd law. Genetic entropy is now known.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Looking forward to your next linked article.

I will glady keep those pesky creationist site articles coming, from the likes of nature, scientific american, sciencedaily, cell, royal society, original papers among others.

And I’ll be glad to point out all the content that refutes your yec position.

Freddy:

Maybe you think the distance for what you class as a yec

…don’t worry just having a little fun with @freddy Who just admitted absolute truth exists, (remember your old signature)

Well, it’s still raining. I hope you’re not confusing meteorology with theology.

 

[buffalo]

And I’ll be glad to point out all the content that refutes your yec position.

middle yec position, remember.

and ignore the salient point of the papers that demolish evolution.

You cannot believe the number of atheists who would never admit to absolute truth of any sort. because…

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And I’ll be glad to point out all the content that refutes your yec position.

middle yec position, remember.

and ignore the salient point of the papers that demolish evolution.

You cannot believe the number of atheists who would never admit to absolute truth of any sort. because…

Fourty yards, Buff. That’s your position. You’re not out of the state. Not even out of the city. Good grief, you’re not even out of the stadium. You’re still on the field!

Middle yec? Don’t make me larf…

And any and all papers or articles you link to will be marked as an exhibit and used as evidence to show how ridiculous your position is.

Middle yec…que risa!

 

[buffalo]

And any and all papers or articles you link to will be marked as an exhibit and used as evidence to show how ridiculous your position is.

The top evo’s are referencing the same papers and understand what is going on. Continue to be a clinger as you are passed by. The dogmatists will hold out til the end.

 

[buffalo]

Middle yec? Don’t make me larf…

it is funny. @eossum gets the credit,.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And any and all papers or articles you link to will be marked as an exhibit and used as evidence to show how ridiculous your position is.

The top evo’s are referencing the same papers and understand what is going on. Continue to be a clinger as you are passed by. The dogmatists will hold out til the end.

You’ve been warned. Anything and everything to which you link. ‘Just read this bit but not the rest’ ain’t gonna cut it, Buff. ‘You can trust what she says here but not what she says there’ won’t win any arguments. You can cherry pick all you like but your position will be revealed as nonsensical using the very evidence you supply.

 

[Techno2000]

Nonsensical. Fantasy. He’s just made something up here. There is no . such . thing . as . a . higher . order .

He’s talking about the hierarchy of animals in the animal kingdom .

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Nonsensical. Fantasy. He’s just made something up here. There is no . such . thing . as . a . higher . order .

He’s talking about the hierarchy of animals in the animal kingdom .

Yes, he is. And there is no such thing as a ‘hierarchy of being’ as Ripperger describes it. A hierarchy is only applicable to taxonomy. I’ve posted many examples of that concept within evolution being rejected.

He bases his argument against evolution by denying that something that doesn’t exist cannot happen. It’s like claiming the moon landings didn’t happen because the world is flat. I’m tempted to say that he knows less about evolution than you do, Techno.

 

[rossum]

Yeah, I remember the stories they used to tell about how hard is was to survive in those days.They would go on and on about how they had to float around for miles and miles looking for a few meager pieces of bacteria to eat. But they said they always had faith that one day they would evolve into something better.

“'Ard? You think that were 'ard? Why when I were a lad…” Now we know where Four Yorkshiremen came from.

 

[o_mlly]

What you said, that ‘evolutionists claim’ that the environment causes the changes is completely, catastrophically and undeniably wrong.

Blowin’ smoke again, Fred? Remember this oldie but goodie?

Open up the window, let some air into this room
I think I’m almost chokin’ from the smell of stale perfume
And that cigarette you’re smokin’ 'bout scare me half to death
Open up the window, sucker, let me catch my breath.

How late did you stay up to concoct your latest distortion of Ripperger’s article? Let’s clear away the smoke in your post.

Ripperger argues to the conclusion that the environmental pressures cannot cause a common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans to evolve into the body of the first human being. Here’s the full quote from the article:

By holding that one species causes another, in particular that a common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans evolved into the body of the first human being, the hypothesis of human evolution essentially asserts that since a thing acts through its accidents, it is through the accidents of a thing that a mutation either in that thing or from some external cause, such as environment, causes the other thing to have the characteristics that are proper to a different species.

Your feeble counter-argument is, “We never said that and we’ll never say it again.” So, now you agree with Ripperger’s conclusion but take exception its premise. Please explain to your other macro boys, your revised position:

As the environment changes so the genes that result in more grandchildren will change.

Some critters evolved rapidly, some very little. Depended on environmental pressure.

And, Fred, this is just too much. It appears you’ve gone off your meds.

Galactically wrong. Stupendously wrong. I can’t emphasis enough how wrong this is. Off the charts wrong. … Nonsensical. Fantasy. He’s just made something up here. There is no . such . thing . as . a . higher . order .

Please quit whining and do some research.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/levels-org-biology/

In the hierarchy theory of evolution, a distinction is made between two types of hierarchies and the corresponding levels (Eldredge 1996; Vrba & Eldredge 1984): The ecological and the genealogical hierarchy. In both kinds of hierarchies, higher-level things are formed through specific interactions among lower-level things.

Back to you. Fred. Hope you’re feeling better.

 

[o_mlly]

You and your creationist compeers keep saying that but you don’t have any reasonable objections from scientific sources. It’s all from ideological organizations that only “do science” toward the ends of that organization. The greatest joke recently produced being ancient dinosaur “flesh”, being found, unfossilized.

Darwins’ mutations have swamped the field, kinda like a virus. There’s no glory in challenging the current paradigm. Who would want to write their doctoral thesis on, “Why macroevolution cannot be true” with a mentor who’s in the tank? Stay tuned, though

You see it every time a small dog mounts a cat and they don’t successfully produce offspring.

Horses and donkeys are so different that they produce, occasionally, offspring that themselves cannot mate. Same with lions and tigers.

Sorry, no brass ring here. Examples of unsuccessful macroevolution do not help your fairy tale.

You and the fern have the same ancestor. But they divided early in the history of life when the ancestor looked much more like a modern protist.

Let me know when you unearth a barking fern.

 

[rossum]

There’s no glory in challenging the current paradigm.

Wrong. Einstein challenged the then current paradigm of Newton and he got a lot of glory as well as a Nobel Prize.

The point is to successfully challenge the current paradigm. To do that you need scientific evidence, as Einstein had, not a woodenly literal reading of a late Bronze Age text.

 

[o_mlly]

Wrong. Einstein challenged the then current paradigm of Newton and he got a lot of glory as well as a Nobel Prize.

Nah. Read your history books.

Criticism of the theory of relativity of Albert Einstein was mainly expressed in the early years after its publication in the early twentieth century, on scientific, pseudoscientific, philosophical, or ideological bases.[A 1][A 2][A 3]

Milena Wazeck, in her recent book, “Einsteins Gegner”,5 has produced an extensive overview of the anti-relativity movement. She has focused foremost on the German opposition to Einstein, but, through its networking with American and other European anti-relativists, her story also provides insight into the broader international constitution of Einstein’s opposition.

Today, Mary Schweitzer’s story reads the same.

 

[Freddy]

Levels of Organization in Biology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

In the hierarchy theory of evolution, a distinction is made between two types of hierarchies and the corresponding levels (Eldredge 1996; Vrba & Eldredge 1984): The ecological and the genealogical hierarchy. In both kinds of hierarchies, higher-level things are formed through specific interactions among lower-level things.

The cut ‘n’ paste above is not an indication that a new species is considered ‘a higher order’ than its progenitor. The hierarchy refers to the level at which selection occurs.

'…the hierarchical organization of nature into levels is an important background assumption, as the aim is to find out at which level(s) of the biological hierarchy natural selection is taking place…'

Biologists such as Dawkins nominates that the selection happens at the level of the gene (the ‘selfish gene’) but others promote the level to be higher:

"Although Darwin’s original account was focused on evolution at the level of organisms, arguably the conditions for natural selection can be formulated abstractly without referring to any specific kinds of entities, which allows for natural selection to operate at any level where the conditions are satisfied (Griesemer 2000; Lewontin 1970).

Since the 1970s, the debate on levels of selection has kept on growing and extending to different areas, though no precise consensus has been reached. Positions range from the gene-centered view, where natural selection is taken to operate almost exclusively at the level of genes (e.g., Dawkins 1976; Williams 1966), to the pluralistic multilevel selection theory, which allows for natural selection to operate on any level of the biological hierarchy where we find the right kind of units."

There are two options now to consider. First that you didn’t read the whole article from which you selected that first paragraph so didn’t realise that it didn’t mean what you thought it did. Or second that you read it but just didn’t understand it. From your well documented lack of understanding of evolution, I’m going with the second option.

Now what are the chances of your response to the matter of the number of microevolutionary changes ‘allowed’? Slim I’d suggest but I feel obliged to ask for something positive from you. You are still holding to your standard m.o. of doing your best to refute science without promoting your own beliefs. As it’s the central aspect of your views then I’d like you to explain them.

And in passing, the environment doesn’t cause changes. Changes in the environment result in changes to organisms (as rossum and Hume stated) but do not cause them. I mean, how many times do I really have to explain this?

But please, post something positive and explain your microevolution problem.

 

[buffalo]

You haven’t been able to. You cannot deal with any evidence that threatens your dogma so you ignore it and dig into the paper to find the nod to Darwin.

Face it, your position is getting weaker every day.

 

[buffalo]

denying that something that doesn’t exist cannot happen.

so intelligent design can happen. Cool.

 

[Freddy]

You haven’t been able to. You cannot deal with any evidence that threatens your dogma so you ignore it and dig into the paper to find the nod to Darwin.

Haven’t been able to what?

And hey, whenever you’re ready, start posting some evidence for your views so I can check it for anything that counters your yec position.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

denying that something that doesn’t exist cannot happen.

so intelligent design can happen. Cool.

I’m not sure that’s a logical proposal you’re making there, Buff. Just because TOD is wrong doesn’t mean that the rest of the creationist mob moves up a position in the League Table of Nonsensical Proposals.