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.
Aloysium said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
In other words, I don’t believe it.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, the suggestion from this statement is that beliefs are an act of will.
Click to expand...
OK, here’s why I don’t believe it. IQ tests are notoriously imprecise. They change over time. The test given today is not exactly the same as the IQ test given 50 years ago. There is no way different tests can be said to measure the same thing to the precision of 1 or 2 IQ points. The burden of establishing that precision rests on those who make the claim about falling IQ scores. Right now all I have is someone here saying that “studies show” IQ is declining. I don’t even know if there are such studies, and I certainly have not seen validation tests for the precision of those tests over 50 years span. Now if you want to present such evidence, be my guest. Until then, I don’t believe it.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
FredBloggs:
Ooh, that’s fascinatingly ignorant. You believe that evolution has no predictive powers? There is a rich history of predictions made by evolutionary theory that - surprise! - have been confirmed.

No results from experiments? Please reference where you got that “information” from.

Why do you think the observation isn’t reliable? Is it because “we weren’t there?” 🤣
Click to expand...
First, one cannot observe long ago past events. So yes, we were not there.

Wait a minute - evolution is predictable? It follows some law or route? (you could list a few and we can discuss)

Over and over I have asked for them. rossum produced two, if I recollect. Neither is a rock solid confirmation of macro-evolution.
Click to expand...
I take back my accusation of ignorance. It’s worse than that - it’s flagrant dishonesty.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
rossum:
Step 1: read those 132 papers.

Step 2: decide for yourself which is the top prediction. You don’t want other people doing your thinking for you, do you?
Click to expand...
Another strike. I figured you guys would have your best case loaded and ready to go.
Click to expand...
Because you’re just the guy to take it on faith, right?

@rossum: buffalo isn’t going to read the research - if he did he wouldn’t be able to claim that it doesn’t exist.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
FredBloggs:
I take back my accusation of ignorance. It’s worse than that - it’s flagrant dishonesty.
Click to expand...
If you had anything of substance you would have posted the reference. Another strike. Fastball.
Click to expand...
Ah, you got me. Evolution is just one big hoax. There’s no research.

@science: the game’s up, guys. Buffalo was too clever for you all.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
FredBloggs:
Because you’re just the guy to take it on faith, right?
Click to expand...
No, I want to see the specific paper. Do you have one? I will wait?
Click to expand...
Well there are 132 of them, it seems. Read the first one. I’m sure rossum can give the link(s) again.

Oh wait, I forgot. You’ve rumbled us.
 
FredBloggs said:
Ah, you got me. Evolution is just one big hoax. There’s no research.

@science: the game’s up, guys. Buffalo was too clever for you all.
Click to expand...
Finally! 😀 Of course, just one paper would help. If you can not show one, indeed you have fallen for it.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
And in passing, you commented that ‘evolution couldn’t predict’. That is: ‘the ToE does not allow predictions to be made’ - which it obviously can. See those 132 papers (count 'em! 132!).

Not ‘evolution is not predictable’. As in 'we have no idea of the changes likely in any organism in the future (with some obvious short term exception - but my guess is that you are thinking millions of years) - which is obviously correct. Well done.

Although I’m not sure you’d appreciate the huge difference there.
Click to expand...
What is the top prediction?
Click to expand...
Hmm. Tricky question (dumb, but tricky). Nothwithstanding that ‘top’ isn’t much of a help in deciding what we’re looking for. I guess it all depends on your personal opinion. How about quantifying lymphocyte receptor diversity versus predicting evolution from genomics: experimental evolution of bacteriophage?

Or maybe tracking global changes induced in the CD4 T-cell receptor repertoire by immunization with a complex antigen using short stretches of CDR3 protein sequence versus whole-genome sequencing of rifampicin-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains identifying compensatory mutations in RNA polymerase genes?

Gee, with all these experiments on predicting outcomes based on the ToE, it’s SO difficult to decide…

But at least you realise they all deal with predictions (‘what IS the top prediction?’). And I put ‘is’ in upper case as it then sounds more plaintive. It’s just how I imagine the question being asked.
 
Bradskii said:
Hmm. Tricky question (dumb, but tricky). Nothwithstanding that ‘top’ isn’t much of a help in deciding what we’re looking for. I guess it all depends on your personal opinion. How about quantifying lymphocyte receptor diversity versus predicting evolution from genomics: experimental evolution of bacteriophage?

Or maybe tracking global changes induced in the CD4 T-cell receptor repertoire by immunization with a complex antigen using short stretches of CDR3 protein sequence versus whole-genome sequencing of rifampicin-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains identifying compensatory mutations in RNA polymerase genes?

Gee, with all these experiments on predicting outcomes based on the ToE, it’s SO difficult to decide…

But at least you realise they all deal with predictions (‘what IS the top prediction?’). And I put ‘is’ in upper case as it then sounds more plaintive. It’s just how I imagine the question being asked.
Click to expand...
At least you are trying. Very busy on the web I see.

I will rephrase - what is the one or two that would convince me of macro-evolution. Please consider the link I have posted:

“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."

“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”

You heard my objections and arguments for many years.

Time to put your money where your mouth is. Oh and try and do it without any ad-hominems.
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
just checked one of the papers at random. All the papers that it references run to close to 50, all dealing with evolution in some experimental way. Each paper listing I’d say a half dozen authors. So that’s around 600 people minimum involved with experiments that deal with the ability of the ToE to make predictions on that one initial paper.
Click to expand...
Fantastic. How about posting one or two…
 
buffalo said:
I will rephrase - what is the one or two that would convince me of macro-evolution.
Click to expand...
There aren’t any. We aren’t trying to convince you. Did you really think we were? We are just highlighting your knowledge of evolution so that others can bathe in its soft and comforting light.
 
Bradskii said:
There aren’t any. We aren’t trying to convince you. Did you really think we were? We are just highlighting your knowledge of evolution so that others can bathe in its soft and comforting light.
Click to expand...
Are you an AI computer program? This is actually funny. I think they have some work to do.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
just checked one of the papers at random. All the papers that it references run to close to 50, all dealing with evolution in some experimental way. Each paper listing I’d say a half dozen authors. So that’s around 600 people minimum involved with experiments that deal with the ability of the ToE to make predictions on that one initial paper.
Click to expand...
Fantastic. How about posting one or two…
Click to expand...
I posted 132. Count 'em! 132!
 
FredBloggs said:
Because
Click to expand...
Bradskii said:
40.png
buffalo:
I will rephrase - what is the one or two that would convince me of macro-evolution.
Click to expand...
There aren’t any. We aren’t trying to convince you. Did you really think we were? We are just highlighting your knowledge of evolution so that others can bathe in its soft and comforting light.
Click to expand...
Incidentally, I should point out that as far as I am aware, none of the papers deal with predictions regarding macro evolution. Which they couldn’t in any case and which wasn’t requested anyway.

Why do you think any of them would? They are simply examples of what you requested: The ToE being used to make predictions.
 
buffalo said:
At least you are trying. Very busy on the web I see.

I will rephrase - what is the one or two that would convince me of macro-evolution. Please consider the link I have posted:

“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."

“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”

You heard my objections and arguments for many years.

Time to put your money where your mouth is. Oh and try and do it without any ad-hominems.
Click to expand...
what is the one or two that would convince me of macro-evolution. Please consider the link I have posted:

You well know I have no issue with adaptation aka micro-evolution.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
buffalo:
At least you are trying. Very busy on the web I see.

I will rephrase - what is the one or two that would convince me of macro-evolution. Please consider the link I have posted:

“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."

“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”

You heard my objections and arguments for many years.

Time to put your money where your mouth is. Oh and try and do it without any ad-hominems.
Click to expand...
what is the one or two that would convince me of macro-evolution. Please consider the link I have posted:

You well know I have no issue with adaptation aka micro-evolution.
Click to expand...
Slow down, Buffalo. You are responding to your own posts now without reading that which has gone before.

There IS nothing that will convince you. Read the proceeding post re the ‘soft and comforting light’.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top