Questions about evolution and origins

[EndTimes]

I am familiar with Gould and have several of his books. I’m not at all disturbed by arguments among evolutionary biologists as to the speed of evolution.

Really - then you should have known what Gould has said.
I’ve seen the man give a lecture
I’d quote more - but I’ll leave it to you.

 

[PickyPicky]

then you should have known what Gould has said.

Yes, I’ve read that quote in the original … and many times on these forums from those who think it undermines evolutionary theory.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Forgive me. I assumed that when you denied that evolution could have occured then you were suggesting that God created all creatures ‘de novo’. I didn’t realise that you had an alternative scientific explanation.

In your own time, could you explain what it is?

“evolution” is defined in various manners and includes as yet unproven theories (plural)…

Often - people say “evolution” when meaning “science” or “Classic Darwinism” or even “antiCreationism”

“evolution” wrt the Biota - also means ‘change’ - so yes, on that note, I’m not denying, Genomic Changes within e.g., Species occur.

de novo? Evidences of radically new body plans emerging from within eg, the fossil record of the Cambrian?

Books are written… Unresolved Arguments abound.

Interesting what Punctuated Equilibrium Evolutionist Steven Jay Gould Scientist - overt enemy of what he and others refer to as “creationism” had to say - of which I’ll present to you this brief for your perusal.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ….We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." - Stephen J. Gould - “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History , vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14.

Sorry, I don’t know why you posted those quotes. I was looking for your explantion of the process which most would describe as evolution. It’s not enough to say ‘This doesn’t work’ without proposing a better solution.

So what is the theory which you consider to be more accurate in describing tbe process?

 

[Wozza]

PickyPicky:

I am familiar with Gould and have several of his books. I’m not at all disturbed by arguments among evolutionary biologists as to the speed of evolution.

Really - then you should have known what Gould has said.
I’ve seen the man give a lecture
I’d quote more - but I’ll leave it to you.

And we’ve also seen others who are keen on denying evolution quote whole chunks of articles which they think supports their position, not realising that the people who wrote them (Gould in this case) write their articles based on the fact of evolution. They write them from an evolutionary viewpoint.

All they are doing is disputing some ideas within the theory. They are not contradicting that evolution occurs.

Bht I’m sure that you’ll let us know what you think supercedes it shortly.

 

[Aloysium]

an alternative scientific explanation.

I will suggest that the reader consider that evolution is pseudoscience. It is the interpretation that currently appeals to people who want to understand things based on what they experience in daily life, predominantly through the relationship we have with things that is the visual world. It serves as a mythos that explains who we are, how we got here and thereby acts to justify our mores and related actions.

The actual science is the fossil record, genetics, the study of anatomic and physiological events and their basis in chemistry and physics. That information, in the context of what we know of the psychological and existential structure of all this, and especially through introspection, the direct knowledge of our own being, leads to a very different understanding. Creationism, meaning the direct involvement of God in every moment and every place, the bringing forth from nothingness, from beginning to end, ontologically and temporally, each and all events, ultimately in holy unity, is the best explanation for this grand symphony that is the universe.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

an alternative scientific explanation.

I will suggest that the reader consider that evolution is pseudoscience.

That would seem to be Endgame’s view. And I assumed that he therefore believed that God creates everything ‘de novo’ as he says. But he wanted to know why I was bringing God into the discussion, so one must assume that he has another theory apart from some form of creationism that also explains the process better than evolution.

Stay tuned for his answer!

 

[EndTimes]

Sorry, I don’t know why you posted those quotes. I was looking for your explantion of the process which most would describe as evolution. It’s not enough to say ‘This doesn’t work’ without proposing a better solution.

So what is the theory which you consider to be more accurate in describing tbe process

And I’m losing track of why you’re posting what you post.

Most? Please be more specific . There are competing theories of what some label “evolution” - the average common man one being Classic Darwinism.

Be more specific on your claim of me saying, “That doesn’t work” for, that doesn’t work for me,.

We can easily show exactly how a specific amino acid within a specific parasite’s gene changed due to a mistaken RNA to DNA copy (call it random mutation) which conferred strong resistance to some Malarial drugs. And we can show how random (mistakes) mutations within some Human populations conferred resistance to Malaria. THAT IS AN EXAMPLE OF A TRANSITION

Darwin was fully aware of the Ape-to-Man skeletons based not upon Genetics but Similarity

He was also aware that certain characteristics of a Species and perhaps Genus are variable…

He knew that Ape to Man Evo is a quantum leap order number of necessary transitions.
And that ‘picture’ of 5 or 7 “Transitions” is completely genetically ludicrous

None of the current theories come even close to definitely, clearly, thoroughly, comprehensively - show Darwin’s Demand of “innumerable transitions” - which must be found in his future - for his argument to hold water.

Anything else?

 

[rossum]

And that you’re not very familiar with Gould // Punctuated Equilibrium.

Not only Gould. Here is Darwin:

But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification.

– Origin, 6th Ed. Chapter Four

Darwin was aware that evolution runs at different speeds; punctuated equilibrium is not a problem for evolution, despite what some anti-evolution websites tell you.

And for completeness, here is some more Gould:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether though design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

– S J Gould “Evolution as Fact and Theory” Discover Magazine May 1981.

Naturally, since you quoted Gould yourself, you accept his words on the subject as authoritative.

 

[Wozza]

None of the current theories come even close to definitely, clearly, thoroughly, comprehensively - show Darwin’s Demand of “innumerable transitions” - which must be found in his future - for his argument to hold water.

You appear to be pointing out, as Gould has, gaps in our knowledge of the evolutionary process. That’s perfectly acceptable. It doesn’t mean that evolution doesn’t occur.

If there’s an aspect of the process which you think it doesn’t explain, then again, can you let us know your opinion on how it occurs.

 

[rossum]

And we’ve also seen others who are keen on denying evolution quote whole chunks of articles which they think supports their position, not realising that the people who wrote them (Gould in this case) write their articles based on the fact of evolution. They write them from an evolutionary viewpoint.

Yes, we see that a lot. It is about as effective as quoting the Bible: “There is no God” We have seen most of those out-of-context quotes before and are immune to them.

 

[Techno2000]

Wozza:

And we’ve also seen others who are keen on denying evolution quote whole chunks of articles which they think supports their position, not realising that the people who wrote them (Gould in this case) write their articles based on the fact of evolution. They write them from an evolutionary viewpoint.

Yes, we see that a lot. It is about as effective as quoting the Bible: “There is no God” We have seen most of those out-of-context quotes before and are immune to them.

Just like we’re immune to this nonsense.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Eeyore]

I would recommend checking out the Institute for Creation Research, the movie Is Genesis History ( it was on Netflix) and the book Darwin’s Demise.

 

[Wozza]

I

Wozza:

And we’ve also seen others who are keen on denying evolution quote whole chunks of articles which they think supports their position, not realising that the people who wrote them (Gould in this case) write their articles based on the fact of evolution. They write them from an evolutionary viewpoint.

Yes, we see that a lot. It is about as effective as quoting the Bible: “There is no God” We have seen most of those out-of-context quotes before and are immune to them.

Just like we’re immune to this nonsense.

Well, when Endtimes gets around to telling us how he thinks it happened (as opposed to telling us how he thinks it didn’t), we’ll all be a lot wiser.

 

[Techno2000]

Well, when Endtimes gets around to telling us how he thinks it happened (as opposed to telling us how he thinks it didn’t), we’ll all be a lot wiser.

It’s simple, they found a bunch of random fossils, then they played a bogus game of connect the dots, and everybody happily swallowed it… hook, line and sinker.

 

[EndTimes]

Just like we’re immune to this nonsense.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

BINGO… !!!

Those who think they know Evolution, Gould, Bio-Sciences, Et Cet

• haven’t the foggiest…

 

[EndTimes]

Darwin: “Evolution occurs so slow - we cannot see it…”
Gould: “Macro-Evolution occurs so fast - we cannot see it.”

PS - Gould’s observations/opinions on the need for an incredibly huge yet never found Fossil Record of innumerable actual transitions - are in line with Darwin’s

The actual fossil record does not prove a thing… beyond lots of bones and more stories…

The TRANSITIONAL GAPS between each creature in this artist imagination proves nothing…
THE PRESUMPTUOUS APE to MAN poster disproves Darwinism…

AND Underscores Why Gould had to invent Punctuated Equilibrium in a failed attempt to link a plausible Theory with the Fossil Record. … The Time required for the alleged series of (neither detailed nor quantified) innumerable speculative transitions could never exist.

.

 

[Wozza]

Darwin: “Evolution occurs so slow - we cannot see it…”
Gould: “Macro-Evolution occurs so fast - we cannot see it.”

PS - Gould’s observations/opinions on the need for an incredibly huge yet never found Fossil Record of innumerable actual transitions - are in line with Darwin’s

The actual fossil record does not prove a thing… beyond lots of bones and more stories…

The TRANSITIONAL GAPS between each creature in this artist imagination proves nothing…
THE PRESUMPTUOUS APE to MAN poster disproves Darwinism…

AND Underscores Why Gould had to invent Punctuated Equilibrium in a failed attempt to link a plausible Theory with the Fossil Record. … The Time required for the alleged series of (neither detailed nor quantified) innumerable speculative transitions could never exist.

I hate to keep pointing this out, but all you are doing is suvgesting that certain aspects of evolution can’t be true. Again I must ask, what is your alternative?

You are the consumate nay-sayer. Nothing you have posted so far is positive in any way. All you have done is say what you think can’t have happened. You are bringing nothing to the discussion.

We are all waiting for you to tell us how you think it did happen. Time to put up.

 

[EndTimes]

Wozza - I hate to keep pointing this out, but all you are doing is suvgesting that certain aspects of evolution can’t be true.

… ,

Which aspects? Just Say It! .

I don’t mind pointing this out:

You’re constantly side-stepping what’s been said and shown…

Which Suggests that you can not…

 

[EndTimes]

Yes, I’ve read that quote in the original … and many times on these forums from those who think it undermines evolutionary theory.

Let’s put it this way…
Gould was an evolution theorist… a Paleontological Scientist. AntiCreationist.
Are who suggesting that you know more than Gould about Paleontology?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza - I hate to keep pointing this out, but all you are doing is suvgesting that certain aspects of evolution can’t be true.

… ,

Which aspects? Just Say It! .

I don’t mind pointing this out:

You’re constantly side-stepping what’s been said and shown…

Which Suggests that you can not…

Last time. Because I think you’re a troll. And I have better things to do then have fun feeding them.

What aspects of evolution do you disagree with and what are your alternatives?