Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

quote:

---

If you read the message I replied to it should be obvious.

---

Not gonna waste time trying to decipher your coded message containing only slur. It's not too difficult to use quote or just to answer.

quote:

---

Examples would be pit eyes as found in planaria or the eye of the nautilus.

---

Pit eyes are fully assembled as well. How is it an intermediate? Do you expect these pit eyes to become more fully formed in the future then? Have any of the nautilus species shown significant change in the assembly of their eyes in the 500 million years of their existence?

That depends. If you'd like to discuss your faith that God created all life, including hearts and livers and eyes, then that belongs in Faith and Belief. But if you'd like to discuss the creationist evidence for an alternative explanation to evolution then that would seem to belong in a science thread.Maybe not this one, though. This thread's topic about the definition of evolution has already been answered. It's the nature of threads to drift off-topic, but this one seems permanently so now that it's discussing the evidence for evolution. It would be nice if someone would go to the trouble of proposing a new thread. That would be a good topic for the Faith and Belief forum, the extent to which acceptance of the theory of evolution is based upon faith.--Percy

quote:

---

Not gonna waste time trying to decipher your coded message containing only slur

---

You only have to read one of your messages - that was directly linked. Apparently that’s too much work for you.

quote:

---

Pit eyes are fully assembled as well. How is it an intermediate?

---

Because they lack most of the parts - there’s not even an eyeball as such. Just a retina of sorts in a cup. And of course actual intermediates are going to be “fully assembled”.Likewise the Nautilus has most of the parts but lacks a cornea and a lens.

I'm not going to moderate this thread, but I am going to start limiting post counts for those who become personal, starting at 5 posts/day and going down from there.

The daily post count limit for the sensei account has been set to 5.

Sensei may not understand the reasons the Nautilus eye has remained in this state. He may be thinking evolution requires “improvement” and “advancement” in structure. He may not know that the Nautilus appears to be especially well adapted (fit) to her evolutionary niche.Her genome appears to replicate quite well, to the point where major changes to her eyes were never advantageous enough to remain in the gene pool. The same reason sensei lost what might have been a useful tail. It wasn’t and its loss from the gene pool is not missed.

It is only stretched like that by people who want to misrepresent atheism. Atheism is simply an answer to a question of whether someone believes in a supernatural deity. That's it. What you seem to continually miss is the observable facts. What do they say?You treat the theory of evolution like it is just something that is taught, as if people can just choose to believe in it or not. What you fail to understand is the mountains and mountains of facts demonstrating evolution to be true. We do have hard evidence for universal common ancestry. We have the universally shared shared metabolic and genetic systems. Stacked on top of this is the fossil record which shows the progression of fossils we would expect to see if all life shared a simple, single celled ancestor. We see the phylogenetic signal in multiple data sets, such as in comparison of shared tRNA sequences.We can establish common ancestry using DNA. We don't need a single fossil for this conclusion. Fossils are just the icing on the cake. No such thing is assumed. We have evidence. For example, the simple eye found in urochordates.The eye in the larvae of seq squirts (part of the Urochordate taxon) is a single cell with opsin in it, and it is covered by nothing more than 3 transparent cells. This is found at the base of the vertebrate tree.Further work on molecular mechanisms has shown how a heat shock protein found in early urochordates gave rise to the crystallin proteins found in modern vertebrate eye lenses.We have the evidence. It isn't just assumed. It isn't faith when you have mountains of evidence demonstrating that life shares a common ancestor and evolved.

Why? Have you even looked into the scientific literature on the evolution of the vertebrate eye? For example:https://www.frontiersin.org/...0.3389/fcell.2021.602450/fullUrochordate betagamma-crystallin and the evolutionary origin of the vertebrate eye lens - PubMedEvolution of crystallins for a role in the vertebrate eye lens - PMCExplosive Expansion of βγ-Crystallin Genes in the Ancestral Vertebrate | Journal of Molecular EvolutionEvolutionary Origins of Pax6 Control of Crystallin Genes | Genome Biology and Evolution | Oxford AcademicThere are tons and tons of scientific papers on this very topic. That's because you refuse to address the facts.Added in edit:I'm thinking of using this quote in my signature.“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of ManPerhaps it should be called the Darwin-Dunning-Kruger effect.

Such a claim is usually followed by the evidence demonstrating the conclusion is false. Where is that evidence? The theory of evolution predicts that this correlation should exist. It is a fulfilled prediction. In science, we call this a supported theory.

The spectrum of differences between genomes (i.e. transitions outnumber transversions) demonstrates that those differences are consistent with the same processes that produce mutations in living species. It isn't a narrative. It is a conclusion drawn from observable facts. I have provided 5 separate tests of common ancestry and evolution in this very thread:
​
1. A nested hierarchy
2. A specific pattern of transition and transversion mutations.
3. A specific pattern of sequence conservation in introns and exons.
4. Transitional fossils.
5. 200,000 shared Endogenous Retroviruses.Wookie has been the only one that gave an earnest attempt to address any of this evidence, and he came up woefully short. All you can do is complain about p values. You won't address this evidence either.Instead, you pretend that these facts don't exist and claim we are pushing a narrative. That's plainly false. We have the science, and you refuse to address it.

"Fully assembled" is just a phrase you made up. It doesn't mean anything. Any arrangement of cells would be called "fully assembled".If a functioning eye is missing many of the parts that creationists claim is needed for a "fully assembled eye" then their argument is meaningless. If your argument is that a fully assembled eye can be nothing more than a photosensitive spot, then what argument are you trying to make?

But, but, but... Jesus.

Theodoric:

---

But, but, but... Jesus.

---

Typical response from a retard.

Taq:

---

"Fully assembled" is just a phrase you made up. It doesn't mean anything.

---

So when PaulK speaks of "the full assemblage of the human eyeball" it is meaningful, but as soon as I use it refer to it, it lost all meaning? Talking about using double standards.

Taq:

---

I have provided 5 separate tests ...

---

Taq:

---

All you can do is complain about p values

---

If you don't understand p-values, then you don't understand testing. It's as simple as that.You are also a bad liar now, claiming that all I do is complaining about p values.
I said many things, like I clearly stated about your nested hierarchy, that there is no general rule that a nested hierarchy means that there has to be a common origin. Yet you claim that this has to be the case, and that this is evidence that confirms common ancestry beyond any doubt. Your claim relies on your own made up, wonky rules.
So much for that test.And then you expect me to waste time on all your other tests, while you understand shit about testing and interpreting p-values to begin with, and the basis of your argument of your first test already fails miserably?

PaulK:

---

sensei:

---

What would you consider to be a show-stopping problem? Because I know you already made up your mind. And any problem, you would just brush off and claim that there is mountains of evidence. And this evidence boils down to the same narrative that it is an accumulation of small changes over a long period of time.
​
Narratives are not evidence. Not to me. If it is to you, then your idea of good science is flawed. Common ancestry of separate species is not backed by real science. It's only wishful thinking.

---

No you didn’t. Your arrogant bluster failed then and it will fail again.

---

Again, nowhere in my message, that you directly responded to, did I claim to do something. So what are you referring to, when you say "No you didn't"?

PaulK:

---

You only have to read one of your messages - that was directly linked. Apparently that’s too much work for you.

---

See, above. I literally quoted my whole message. I did not do what?
You keep making these kind of nonsense comments and claims and then blame me of not reading when I ask you for clarification.

AZPaul3:

---

Sensei may not understand the reasons the Nautilus eye has remained in this state. He may be thinking evolution requires “improvement” and “advancement” in structure. He may not know that the Nautilus appears to be especially well adapted (fit) to her evolutionary niche.

---

Species have supposedly changed and started occupying new niches countless of times. Your excuse of why so many species remained relatively unchanged for hundreds of millions of years, is just weak.But you need these kind of excused to bend the data and your predictions and force them to fit a bit closer together. While in reality, evolution theory has poor predictions, not matching the unchanging species at all.
First complex life appeared like little over 2 billion years ago? And you find it reasonable to believe that the nautilus eyes remained unchanged for the most part for roughly a quarter of that time?You seem to so much want to believe in a theory that goes against observed data. And of course you are free to do so. I'm just looking at the facts and I'm laughing in your faces for believing in your nonsense.

PaulK:

---

Examples would be pit eyes as found in planaria or the eye of the nautilus. They show that the full assemblage of the human eyeball is not necessary for a functional eye of some sort.

---

Taq:

---

"Fully assembled" is just a phrase you made up. It doesn't mean anything.

---

Yeah sure, I made it up.This is becoming a recurring theme. You attacking me on semantics, while others use the same semantics before I did.
But you only start having a problem with the phrasing as soon as I use it. Then you try to make it look like I made up something stupid, while I just try to respond to all of you, trying to refer to what you said, using similar language and similar phrasing.But your arguments turn out to be weak anyway, so no surprise you are reverting to semantics attack.

I think I will just let admin and mods take care of this. As the parent of a developmentally disabled adult I find this extremely offensive. You deserve a multi day suspension at the least.