Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vonsalza said:
Note: tentatively. All theories are eternally subject to revision at any time.
Click to expand...
Not evolution. It is exempt no matter what they find. It is always true. It has to be. Do a quick review on the issues of peer review and why they want to overhaul the system. Then move onto funding and what happens to a researcher who dares try to publish material that would oppose evo. I have no confidence in this system.

Using your same standard though 😀 What about peer reviewed papers that support ID? Just discard them?
 
Techno2000 said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
You may not be open to reason. Have you ever considered that?
Click to expand...
No fossil record, is a good place to start for being an unbeliever .
Click to expand...
This is specifically for you, Techno. But applies to the other two amigos as well.

There is a talk back radio programme in the UK. They invite calls on many topics. And there is one host who is the most laser-focussed debater I have ever encountered.

If someone says something vague, he won’t continue until they are specific. If they say something wrong, he will correct them (he has a lot of researchers checking everything out in real time) and he will cut off anyone who strays from the point of discussion.

For those people who have said something that is demonstrably incorrect, one ‘tactic’ he uses, if I can use that term, to make sure the talker is discussing the matter and not blindly pushing his own point of view, is to ask the caller to repeat what he has just said. Simplt to ascertain that he is absorbing (but not necessarily agreeing with) the opposition view.

Without fail, hardly anyone can do it. Discussions are just one way streets where one party ignores what the other party says and simply keeps on pushing his own barrow.

Techno…you keep asking the same questions time and time again. You keep making statements which have already been refuted. It is effectively irrelevant whether you believe what the other person is saying, but it is common decency to listen and hen respond accordingly.

Do you understand what I am saying?
 
Vonsalza said:
40.png
Techno2000:
40.png
Vonsalza:
You may not be open to reason. Have you ever considered that?
Click to expand...
No fossil record, is a good place to start for being an unbeliever .
Click to expand...
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Could you edit/rephrase?
Click to expand...
There’s no evidence of macroevolution, 10 million different plant and animal species would leave a huge fossil trail, even Darwin admits this.
 
Last edited:
Peer review for Intelligent Design is happening:

"These papers have appeared in scientific journals such as Protein Science , Journal of Molecular Biology , Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling , Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics , Quarterly Review of Biology , Cell Biology International , Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum , Physics of Life Reviews , Annual Review of Genetics , and many others. At the same time, pro-ID scientists have presented their research at conferences worldwide in fields such as genetics, biochemistry, engineering, and computer science.

“This body of research is converging on a consensus: complex biological features cannot arise by unguided Darwinian mechanisms, but require an intelligent cause.”
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Note: tentatively. All theories are eternally subject to revision at any time.
Click to expand...
Not evolution. It is exempt no matter what they find. It is always true.
Click to expand...
Because it always fits.

Like this new Tyrannosaur they’ve found. A long-standing gap between massive tyrannosaurs and little chicken-sized theropods had been missing and thus theorized.

This new specimen fits like a perfect little puzzle piece.
Then move onto funding and what happens to a researcher who dares try to publish material that would oppose evo. I have no confidence in this system.
Click to expand...
I do. The researcher that successfully bucks long-standing scientific order gets critique up front, but they get fame, nobels and money in the back.

They all want to discover something totally new or rewrite a chapter in your textbook. All of them.

If ID ends up being the truth and the scientific community pivots to support it, I’ll buy you a beer.
 
buffalo said:
You can see how @Bradskii then went on to attack the ID case at Dover and it seems in good conscience is now relying on the judgement of a judge. Seems to be a flawed human reasoning issue.
Click to expand...
Straw man. The decision wasn’t based on science. It was based on the fact that the DI was caught trying to sneak creationism into schools through the back door wearin a funny hat and a false nose. to avoid detection.
 
A bit more:

"Research performed by Doug Axe at Cambridge University, and published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Molecular Biology, has shown that the number of functional amino acid sequences (ones that can form functioning proteins) is tiny:
Doug Axe’s research likewise studies genes that it turns out show great evidence of design. Axe studied the sensitivities of protein function to mutations. In these “mutational sensitivity” tests, Dr. Axe mutated certain amino acids in various proteins, or studied the differences between similar proteins, to see how mutations or changes affected their ability to function properly. He found that protein function was highly sensitive to mutation, and that proteins are not very tolerant to changes in their amino acid sequences. In other words, when you mutate, tweak, or change these proteins slightly, they stopped working. In one of his papers, he thus concludes that “functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences,” and that functional protein folds “may be as low as 1 in 10^77.”
Click to expand...
“The problem of forming DNA by sequencing nucleotides faces similar difficulties. And remember, mutation and selection cannot explain the origin of the first sequence, because mutation and selection require replication, which does not exist until that first living cell is already in place . I think that this very valuable research, indeed.”
 
Techno2000 said:
There’s no evidence of macroevolution, 10 million different plant and animal species would leave a huge fossil trail, even Darwin admits this.
Click to expand...
It seems that quite a substantial fossil trail has been left behind.

My all time fav is Sue in Chicago (oh what it is to be young).

If you counter with, “Well! It’s not big enough!” My immediate and logical counter is “How on earth do you know that? How did you calculate it?”
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
This new specimen fits like a perfect little puzzle piece.
Click to expand...
Only if it was decided a priori what the finished puzzle should look like.
Click to expand...
In that little example, sure. Because if evolution is true, we can use it to predict what intermediaries would look like.

And lo and behold!

This isn’t the first time this has happened.
 
Bradskii said:
The decision wasn’t based on science. It was based on the fact that the DI was caught trying to sneak creationism into schools through the back door wearin a funny hat and a false nose. to avoid detection.
Click to expand...
Hold on a minute. You mean the Dover trial admitted to ID?
 
buffalo said:
Bad design still admits design. It is an argument you should not use.
Click to expand...
It is satire, not an argument. Although if the designer is described as omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipresent, the burden of proof is to explain why “he” screwed up so badly.
 
Last edited:
Very good point. I do research regarding World War II. There are a lot of missing puzzle pieces and, over the years, various people have added pieces to a puzzle of unknown size.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top