|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 49 (9221 total) |
| |
KING IYK | |
Total: 920,792 Year: 1,114/6,935 Month: 395/719 Week: 37/146 Day: 10/8 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Dredge writes: Tanypteryx writes: An ad hominem attack is not science. Well, I already know that you believe a lot of bullshit Well, you have not presented any science, so I was just describing what you have presented so far. Telling the truth is not an ad hominem ... just a statement of fact. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth is that it is the result of billions of years of aliens having fun with genetic engineering. Every "scientific explanation" (eg theory) is based on observed evidence. There is no evidence of "aliens having fun with genetic engineering" ergo it is not a scientific explanation but a made up fantasy.
I suggest Karl Popper's grasp of the English language is pathetic - I understand very little of the above statement. Not surprising given your demonstrated lack of understanding of science in general. Think of it this way: Just as you cannot prove a negative unless you know all the information possible on a given topic, so too you cannot prove an absolute positive unless you know all the information possible on a given topic. You are left with dealing with the portion of the information that is available.
The best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth is that it is the result of billions of years of aliens having fun with genetic engineering. A scientific explanation explains this information that is available and provides a mechanism that has also been observed to operate. The ToE explains the known information and provides mechanisms (mutation and selection, drift, etc) that accounts for the information. With no evidence of aliens, nor of any mechanism by which the insert their "genetic engineering" during observed processes of evolution, there is no basis for making this assumption. Particularly as the ToE does explain it without the use of aliens (Occam's wicked razor). This is why the ToE has been validated and the "alien genetic experiment" concept has not.
One hundred and fifty years ago, the Darwinian explanation prevailed in primitive minds, but Darwin et al had no concept of advanced aliens from outer space and no experience of UFOs, but these days we know better. Except that there is no evidence to substantiate any observation. Willow-the-wisp sights are not evidence of aliens. But if you have something substantial, please present it. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
RAZD writes:
The best scientific explanation for the appearance of a new genus is genetic engineering performed by aliens. So the evidence of Pelycodus shows "a species from one genus evolved into a species of a new genus." The genus did not exist before this new nomenclature was applied. And they miraculously knew scientists were going to give it a new genus name instead of continuing the old one with a new species. That's some wicked strong magic. How did they do that?
Except that the evidence shows an absence of outside tampering
On the contrary, the fossil record shows abundant evidence of "outside tampering". Please provide. preferably documented in a scientific journal. I know of none.
while common ancestry in living species is observed and thus is a known process.
Certainly,, common ancestry is observed, but the evolution of a new genus has never been observed - even thousands of years of intensive artificial selection by humans - using every trick in the book - has failed to produce anything even close to a new genus. In other words, the evidence suggests the genus barrier cannot be crossed by natural means. Mostly because producing a new genus was not the intent of artificial selection.
1. The fossil record cannot be explained by any observed process. And yet it has been explained by the ToE, your refusal does not negate the explanation.
2. The existence of aliens may be "invisible" but it is not "undetectable" - the fossil record is powerful scientific evidence of genetic engineering - and the only scientific explanation for that engineering is aliens. Please document with results of scientific study of same. Without substantiation this is just pseudoscience masquerading as science, and not worth the bandwidth taken to post The difference between science and pseudoscience is substation by documented evidence. Pseudoscience is characterized by a lack of (if not distain for) evidence, relying instead on made up fantasies.
The Darwinian "explanation" is lame, outdated and little more than rehashed spontaneous generation - a nineteenth-century superstition. And yet the ToE still explains all the known evidence. No it is not a rehash of spontaneous generation, and all that comment does is demonstrate your ignorance of evolution. Perhaps that is your reason for picking on aliens ... Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
see reply to Message 997
Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
see response to Message 1003
Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Message 966
RAZD writes:
If you can push ToE without producing any observable macroevolution then I can push my "aliens did it" theory without producing an observable alien. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. With no evidence of aliens, nor of any mechanism by which the insert their "genetic engineering" during observed processes of evolution, there is no basis for making this assumption. Except that there is evidence for macroevolution via known evolutionary processes, you just don't accept them. See 29+ Evidences for MacroevolutionThe Scientific Case for Common Descent for some known as of 2012. RAZD writes:
It will take time for scientists to get used to my new theory. I predict that in ten years time, my "aliens did it" theory will have largely replaced the outdated and childishly inadequate theory of Darwinian evolution. So I suggest that the sooner you wake up and grow up out the nineteenth century, the better. Particularly as the ToE does explain it without the use of aliens (Occam's wicked razor). This is why the ToE has been validated and the "alien genetic experiment" concept has not. It will take forever without objective empirical evidence substantiating it. All you appear to have is anecdotal evidence and wishful thinking pretending to be science.
Message 997RAZD writes: ... except that each fossil currently valides the ToE when it fits into the temporal/spatial matrix and the explanation provided by the ToE for getting from one spcies to another via known mechanisms of evolution. I fear you're talking rubbish. Fossils confirm that life-forms on earth have changed over time, but fossils can't confirm or validate the cause of those changes. Fossils don't validate ToE and its mechanisms anymore than they validate my "aliens" theory and its mechanism of genetic engineering. Sadly - for you - you are (still) wrong again. The changes documented in the fossil record show the pattern of proximity in space/time and in degree of evolution predicted by the ToE, and that are actually seen and documented in living species today: this is sufficient to say they are explained by the ToE. This what validation looks like.
Neither aliens nor "progressive creation" provide as complete an explanation of all facets of the evidence. And ToE does? You're dreaming. Nope, it is accepted by overwhelming majority of biological scientists (because ... see previous comment), and it is also confirmed by the independent analysis of genetic analysis and genome comparisons. Objective empirical evidence, unlike anecdotal evidence which you appear to rely on.
Message 998RAZD writes: Curious that aliens and gods only created evidence that completely mimics what the process of evolution would produce and only what the ToE predicts would occur. Curious that you ignore all the evidence that contradicts ToE - where is the evidence for the evolutionary ancestors of trilobites, fish and insects? Where are the missing links between the Ediacaran fauna all the novel phyla that appeared during the Cambrian explosion? The evidence for these "ancestors" doesn't exist! Curiously, missing information is not contradictory. That's called a swing and a miss:
Message 1003RAZD writes:
Ever heard of the fossil record? Dredge writes: On the contrary, the fossil record shows abundant evidence of "outside tampering". Please provide. preferably documented in a scientific journal. I know of none. Citing the fossil record is not sufficient to claim evidence for "outside tampering" -- you have to show what tampering was involved and why it supports your claim. Objective empirical evidence ... that you are missing
Mostly because producing a new genus was not the intent of artificial selection.
For thousands of years, humans have tried to alter the characteristics of dogs, for example, in all sorts of ways using every trick in nature's toolbox - even resorting to unnatural methods such as inbreeding - but no one has managed to produce anything but more dogs. Obviously, there are genetic limits to how much organisms can change.It was only when genetic engineering came along that the potential for producing radically different organisms was realised. Compared to genetic engineering, the mechanisms of evolution have been observed to produced only very limited and puny changes with a population. The claim that these evolutionary mechanisms can change a dinosaur into a bird (for example) are absurd and an embarrassment to science. And curiously, (micro)evolutionary change is still what the evidence shows: limited changes from generation to generation, within the temporal/spacial matrix limitations. The preponderance of evidence of dinosaur to flightless feathered dinosaur to bird increases every year. Plus bone types and breating system. Another case of a "missing link" being filled in by later objective empirical evidence. This hasn't been affected by progress in the relatively new field of genetic engineering. What genetic analysis has done is improve the evidence of evolutionary change explaning the known objective empirical evidence.
And yet the ToE still explains all the known evidence.
... like fish and insects appearing out of nowhere in the fossil record! Yes. It provides the best explanation provided by science, based on objective empirical evidence rather than fantasy, anecdotal evidence, denial of science and wishful thinking. ... "out of nowhere" is really meaningless hyperbole in terms of the fossil record ... as it could be said of every fossil, which makes it redundant, tautological and banal, like most of your posts. It is amusing the lengths you've gone to in order to argue for an alien conspiracy theory instead of a fact based analysis ... because reality challenges your cherished strongly held beliefs (resulting in cognitive dissonance and resulting denial).
quote: Sounds a lot like all the evolution disbelievers, from fundamentalist YEC to apologist OEC, IDologist, and science denialists. People who want reality to match their belief instead of belief matching reality. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
See response to Message 1022
Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
IIRC Dredge is an OEC
quote: And he has several times referred to "progressive creationism"
quote: Sound familiar? Always good to try to understand what you are arguing against. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD writes:
Nonsense - "known evolutionary processes" demonstrate nothing more "known evolutionary process". You are conflating wishful thinking and science. there is evidence for macroevolution via known evolutionary processes Actually it has been observed, in the field, and documented in scientific journal. Happened via mutation and selection ... known evolutionary processes, not by mystical alien invisible/undetectable fingers.
sadly - for you - you are (still) wrong again. The changes documented in the fossil record show the pattern of proximity in space/time and in degree of evolution predicted by the ToE, and that are actually seen and documented in living species today: this is sufficient to say they are explained by the ToE. This what validation looks like.
Oh, and I suppose all those gaps and sudden appearances in the fossil record are predicted by ToE as well! Your quack theory relies on cheery-picking the evidence. Gaps were predicted by Darwin. "Sudden appearance" would be at the end of a gap, of course, and they were also well explained by Punctuated Equilibrium, something Darwin had also discussed.
Curiously, missing information is not contradictory.
The "incomplete fossil record" excuse is running out of puff - Gunter Bechly considers the fossil record to be "saturated" - meaning, we have enough fossil evidence now to conclude that the record is complete in a general sense. That is to say, the gaps and sudden appearances will always be gaps and sudden appearances. Curiously, the record IS rather complete "in a general sense" ... meaning that in spite of the "gaps and sudden appearances" currently in the record, we know enough of the general process from LUCA to now to get the general picture of the diversity of life over the natural history of the planet. We also know that new finds will more likely fill in the gaps than present contrary evidence. That's because of the high confidence level scientists have with the ToE being the best explanation available at this time. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
RAZD writes:
Yeah, right ... and this is why Gould described the fossil record as an "embarrassment" to Darwinian gradualism! And curiously, (micro)evolutionary change is still what the evidence shows But not to evolution in general. Even Darwin rejected universal gradualism. There is evidence of gradualism in the forminafera fossil record, and there is evidence of more rapid evolution and stasis (eg punk eek) in the fossil record. All known evolutionary processes.
Not even the reptile-jaw to mammalian-inner-ear fossil sequence demonstrates microevolutionary changes. Wrong.
And apparently insects appearing out of nowhere demonstrates microevolutionary changes - hilarious! Except they did not appear "out of nowhere" ... That's 3 wrongs in 3 sentences. You really appear to know not that you know naught about this topic. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Message 1062: ... For the record, I consider myself only as a Cosmological Creationist in that I believe that the universe was created by a supreme intelligence. Beyond that I have no belief. ... Becoming Deist? Christian Deist?
... Biblical creationism never made much logical sense to me, but I dont reject it 100% due to the fact that so many people whom I otherwise respect DO in fact believe it.
Message 1063: I always enjoy reading these arguments, assertions, and litany of facts presented here at EvC by our science-qualified members. Just as I don't reject Biblical Creationism wholesale only because I know quite a few who believe it. Logical fallacy of popularity, ie not a valid reason. Seems more like reluctance to me.
Evolution vs Creationism is hardly a black and white issue. I surmise that in fact both could be operating in principle at the same time. I was told (by Mr Jack IIRC) that I was by definition a creationist when I first visited here, because I believe god/s created the universe, so that really opens up a spectrum of creationism versus "Biblical Creationism" (young, old, etc), ID etc.
The Evidence Screams For Validation It really doesn't matter to me what one believes, as long as it is both logically consistent and consistent with the available evidence. Belief in a young earth is patently/provably false (Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1), as is belief in an actual world wide global flood.
Confirmation Bias, Cognitive Dissonance, cherry picking and idée fixes, are not the tools of an open-mind or an honest skeptic, and continued belief in the face of contradictory evidence is delusion. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Punk eek is a "known" evolutionary process"? Yes. See Differential Dispersal Of Introduced Species - An Aspect of Punctuated Equilibrium We also know speciation occurs as it too has been oberved. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
RAZD writes:
If that were true, you would have accepted my "aliens" theory, which is clearly scientifically superior to the nineteenth-century evolution story you can't let go of. It really doesn't matter to me what one believes, as long as it is both logically consistent and consistent with the available evidence
Except it is not logically consistent to propose unknown unobserved aliens when your actual belief is otherwise and there is an existing theory that adequately explains the evidence. Nor do you have any actual evidence of aliens, nor any actual mechanism for achieving the purported process and you have no evidence of that process being anything other than standard ToE processes ... ... and it doesn't appear to be falsifiable - a drop-dead requirement of any actual scientific theory (but not for pseudoscience twaddle) ... ... unlike the ToE which is falsifiable, and it is chock full of actual observed mechanisms and actual observed processes, so no, it is no consistent with the available evidence no matter how much you pretend otherwise. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... I think you’re a few fossils short to make that claim - by about a thousand . at least. What you think is irrelevant.
So, about ten fossils ... Whether it's 10 or 2000 is also irrelevant.
... spanning a period of millions of years demonstrate microevolutionary steps? ... Yes, because each of the intermediate fossils show minor variation from preceding fossils -- slight relocation of bones, slight changes in relative sizes, these are microevolutionary steps, similar to what we see between dog varieties. Added up from one to the next to the next etc they show a gradual change over time from reptilian jaw and ear to mammalian jaw and ear. Enjoy References:
The cladogram in the second reference is hyperlinked to more details at each level. For instance you can click on Cynodontia and go to
Cynodontia quote:Therapsida And you can click on Mammaliaformes and go to
Mammaliaformes quote:Cynodontia And you can click on Mammalia and go to
Mammalia quote:Mammaliformes by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
razd writes:
I fear you are talking nonsense. Accepting “the best scientific explanation” has nothing to do with believing that theory is the truth. Except it is not logically consistent to propose unknown unobserved aliens when your actual belief is otherwise You're moving the goalposts again. We were talking about logical consistency, not “the best scientific explanation.” Meanwhile “the best scientific explanation” is still the one supported by all the evidence and by known observed processes rather than imaginary conflations of anecdote and wishful thinking.
there is an existing theory that adequately explains the evidence.
Let this be the last time you speak of this pathetic atheist delusion. Curiously science is neither atheistic nor delusional ... you must be thinking of pseudoscience.
Nor do you have any actual evidence of aliens, nor any actual mechanism for achieving the purported process and you have no evidence of that process being anything other than standard ToE processes ...
1. How many folks claim to have seen UFOs or aliens? Thousands.How folks claim to have seen a reptile evolve into a mammal via Darwinian processes? Zero. 2. The mechanism is genetic engineering. Ever heard of it? It produces observed, repeatable macroevolutions. Google it and learn . then wake up and grow up out of your primitive, simplistic, nineteenth-century Darwinist superstition. I suggest this for you own good. Like I said, imaginary conflations of anecdote and wishful thinking.
How many folks claim to have seen UFOs or aliens? Thousands. And yet not one is supported by any objective empirical evidence.
How folks claim to have seen a reptile evolve into a mammal via Darwinian processes? Zero. Yet we can see the evidence of this transition in the fossils -- see Message 1123 for example. We don't need to see a murder to detect when one has taken place.
.. and it doesn't appear to be falsifiable
I can’t at this juncture think of a way to falsify my theory - but I will let the world know when I do. And until that time, you do not have a scientific theory, just a imaginary conflations of anecdote and wishful thinking.
the ToE ... is chock full of actual observed mechanisms and actual observed processes,
. which do nothing more than describe limited variations within a population. ... And Message 1123 adequately shows that the "limited variations within a population" can, population after population, build on one another to develop the evolutionary change over time from reptile to mammal.
... To get from this to an explanation for the fossil record, one needs to add huge doses of wild extrapolation and wishful thinking . as well as being blessed with a very vivid imagination. Careful, you are quite succinctly describing your alien theory there. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025