10 facts evolutionists don't want you to know

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
[b]...evolution isn't a theory of the fossil record.

No one said it was.[/b]

and yet you said;

"Starting from the premise of evolution you will be able to 'see' gaps in the fossil record. "

which implies it is.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
I'm willing to read a link or two from anyone who has the capacity to understand what I'm saying, as well as having the good sense to avoid coming across like an oxymoronic bombastic name calling hair-trigger reactionary booger eating... booger eater.

========================================================================

Starting from the premise ...[text shortened]... u begin with the evolutionary premise allowing you to 'see' the gaps that aren't actually there.

The Cambrian Explosion was described in great detail by Stephen Gould in his book "Wonderful Life." He was not attempting to explain why the fossil gaps exist (which would be folly), he was trying to explain how evolution worked. Some of it was speculative, and will always be speculative. It happened half a billion years ago. But the book itself was filled with accurate fossil record evidence from the Burgess Shale. Evolutionary mechanisms sifted out these body plans to fill in niches within ecosystems, many of which were not successful and were therefore not seen in earlier or more recent fossils. New body plans appeared and went extinct in a relatively short period of geological time.

It also twisted a fascinating tale about evolutionary explosions that led to immensely diverse body plans in short time periods. Hyperbolic language, perhaps. And there have been challenges to his premise, and holes poked in his theories. But ultimately, the Burgess Shale deposit remains very strong evidence of punctuated equilibrium.

ps. the 'S' in https stands for "secure"

Originally posted by @wildgrass
The Cambrian Explosion was described in great detail by Stephen Gould in his book "Wonderful Life." He was not attempting to explain why the fossil gaps exist (which would be folly), he was trying to explain how evolution worked. Some of it was speculative, and will always be speculative. It happened half a billion years ago. But the book itself was fille ...[text shortened]... ins very strong evidence of punctuated equilibrium.

ps. the 'S' in https stands for "secure"

He was not attempting to explain why the fossil gaps exist (which would be folly), he was trying to explain how evolution worked. Some of it was speculative, and will always be speculative.

I feel compelled to explain something I shouldn't have to explain:

apathist told me he thought irreducible complexity had been debunked, so I responded by saying I thought punctuated equilibrium had been debunked. Both statements are absurd because neither one of those (PE, IC) has been 'debunked'.

Evolution obviously doesn't need abiogenesis, but it definitely needs (is dependent upon) PE. So there's no doubt in my mind that it will never be 'debunked'. On the other hand, I've heard proclamations from evolutionists claiming irreducible complexity has been debunked.

It all boils down to who, what and how. Debunked by who (and for what reason) is easily determined, but the more important question and difficult to answer is... how?

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
[b]He was not attempting to explain why the fossil gaps exist (which would be folly), he was trying to explain how evolution worked. Some of it was speculative, and will always be speculative.

I feel compelled to explain something I shouldn't have to explain:

apathist told me he thought irreducible complexity had been debunked, so I responded ...[text shortened]... reason) is easily determined, but the more important question and difficult to answer is... how?[/b]

Evolution obviously doesn't need abiogenesis, but it definitely needs (is dependent upon) PE.

No, it needs neither because, hypothetically, if the evidence was for always things evolving at the same rate, the theory of evolution would work just as well as an explanation.
The EVIDENCE needs PE to explain it; evolution theory doesn't need that evidence for PE and the evolution process doesn't need PE to work.

..claiming irreducible complexity has been debunked

All claims of irreducible complexity in living things have been shown to be nothing of the sort and not one example of such claimed irreducible complexity has stood up to any scrutiny;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
"....
Researchers have proposed potentially viable evolutionary pathways for allegedly irreducibly complex systems such as blood clotting, the immune system[89] and the flagellum[90][91] - the three examples Behe proposed. John H. McDonald even showed his example of a mousetrap to be reducible.[50] If irreducible complexity is an insurmountable obstacle to evolution, it should not be possible to conceive of such pathways.[92]..."

-irreducible complexity debunked.

Originally posted by @humy

Evolution obviously doesn't need abiogenesis, but it definitely needs (is dependent upon) PE.

No, it needs neither because, hypothetically, if the evidence was for always things evolving at the same rate, the theory of evolution would work just as well as an explanation.
The EVIDENCE needs PE to explain it; evolution theory doesn't need ...[text shortened]... d not be possible to conceive of such pathways.[92]..."

-irreducible complexity debunked.[/b]

John H. McDonald even showed his example of a mousetrap to be reducible.

A mouse trap, or Behe's mouse trap?

"It all boils down to who, what and how. Debunked by who (and for what reason) is easily determined, but the more important question and difficult to answer is... how?"

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
[b]He was not attempting to explain why the fossil gaps exist (which would be folly), he was trying to explain how evolution worked. Some of it was speculative, and will always be speculative.

I feel compelled to explain something I shouldn't have to explain:

apathist told me he thought irreducible complexity had been debunked, so I responded ...[text shortened]... reason) is easily determined, but the more important question and difficult to answer is... how?[/b]

My (admittedly limited) understanding of irreducible complexity is that it rests on the premise that evolution of complex biological systems, for example the eye, could not have occurred because they are too complicated. I don't understand how this is even debunkable, since there isn't any preliminary evidence to support it.

There is another premise in the ether out there that because the pyramids are really big and heavy and ancient Egypt didn't even have cranes or bull dozers, aliens must have built them. Until evidence of alien pyramid construction emerges, most people, however, accept the consensus that the Egyptians built them

Originally posted by @lemon-lime

but the more important question and difficult to answer is... how?"

the link I just showed you answers the "how" with;

"If irreducible complexity is an insurmountable obstacle to evolution, it should not be possible to conceive of such pathways."
-and yet people have thus showing irreducible complexity to be false.

Exactly which part of that are you unable to comprehend?

Originally posted by @lemon-lime

Evolution obviously doesn't need abiogenesis, but it definitely needs (is dependent upon) PE.

What makes you think so?

Originally posted by @humy
the link I just showed you answers the "how" with;

"If irreducible complexity is an insurmountable obstacle to evolution, it should not be possible to conceive of such pathways."
-and yet people have thus showing irreducible complexity to be false.

Exactly which part of that are you unable to comprehend?

"A" mousetrap, or "Behe's" mouse trap? It's a simple question...

Did McDonald show how Behe's mousetrap was not irreducibly complex, or did he direct your attention to a differently designed mousetrap?

Originally posted by @wildgrass
My (admittedly limited) understanding of irreducible complexity is that it rests on the premise that evolution of complex biological systems, for example the eye, could not have occurred because they are too complicated. I don't understand how this is even debunkable, since there isn't any preliminary evidence to support it.

There is another premise in ...[text shortened]... d construction emerges, most people, however, accept the consensus that the Egyptians built them

Is there any evidence the pyramids were actually built by anyone? They look like pointy little hills. There are tons of examples of unusual looking geographical features from all over the world, so why would pyramids be any different? I mean really, it's not like anyone has the supernatural ability to know one way or the other.

Maybe it's a religious thing, and some people want to believe pyramids were built by some mysterious designer... or by aliens.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
What makes you think so?

When I said "history" of PE I was referring to when it was first introduced and what it attempted to explain. It's purpose was to explain a conspicuous lack of fossil evidence of intermediary species. These were called "gaps" in the fossil record.

I don't know how old you are, but PE became a supporting theory to evolution during my lifetime. It wasn't needed in the early years of fossil collection, because early on there wasn't enough fossil evidence for apparent gaps to appear.


edit: "In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Originally posted by @humy

Evolution obviously doesn't need abiogenesis, but it definitely needs (is dependent upon) PE.

No, it needs neither because, hypothetically, if the evidence was for always things evolving at the same rate, the theory of evolution would work just as well as an explanation.
The EVIDENCE needs PE to explain it; evolution theory doesn't need ...[text shortened]... d not be possible to conceive of such pathways.[92]..."

-irreducible complexity debunked.[/b]

Pardon my facetiousness, but the death nail (haha! anyone get that?...) in the coffin simply has to be point reference 50, i.e., the ol' mousetrap-as-a-spitball-catapult country logic.
60% of the time gets 'em everytime.

Good God, what happened to critical thinking?

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Pardon my facetiousness, but the death nail (haha! anyone get that?...) in the coffin simply [b]has to be point reference 50, i.e., the ol' mousetrap-as-a-spitball-catapult country logic.
60% of the time gets 'em everytime.

Good God, what happened to critical thinking?[/b]

what happened to critical thinking?

A. It became obsolete when it was discovered any question can be answered by posting links.

B. It was outlawed during The Big Purge.
(everyone was required to poop at least twice a day)

C. It became extinct when abiogenesis was ushered from the house of evolution.

D. A poll was taken, and 98.6% believed critical thinking meant being critical of thinking.


FYI: In 2034 reading was outlawed, and anyone caught reading or writing was summarily exec....

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
[b]what happened to critical thinking?

A. It became obsolete when it was discovered any question can be answered by posting links.

B. It became outlawed during The Big Purge.
(everyone was required to poop at least twice a day)

C. It became extinct when abiogenesis was ushered from the house of evolution.

D. A poll was taken, and 98.6% b ...[text shortened]... nking. In 2034 reading was outlawed, and anyone caught reading or writing was summarily exec....[/b]

Damn time travelers.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Damn time travelers.

Tell me about it...
2 more seconds and I'd be dead meat.