10 facts evolutionists don't want you to know

Originally posted by @freakykbh
The suggestion that you (or anyone else) can find abiogenesis--- the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances--- as a "credible and reasonable" explanation is the very picture of faith.

That is nonsense. There were no living beings, and then there were. Therefore abiogenesis happened.

You cannot deny the second premise. Convince me that the big bang had living creatures in it.

Originally posted by @apathist
That is nonsense. There were no living beings, and then there were. Therefore abiogenesis happened.

You cannot deny the second premise. Convince me that the big bang had living creatures in it.

No, it's not nonsense.
The operative word here is FROM.
Start there.

Originally posted by @apathist
Convince me that the big bang had living creatures in it.

I hope there weren't living creatures in it! -the poor things would have been instantly vaporized.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
No, it's not nonsense.
The operative word here is FROM.
Start there.

It's so freaky that there people who say they brag about how much science they know and at the same time are so ignorant in science.

Originally posted by @apathist
Except that I am not wrong here. Irreducible complexity has no scientific support, it is a mere ploy made by creationists. Punctuated equilibrium is viable, afaik.

Except that I am not wrong here.

Of course not. When has an evolutionist ever been wrong?

Irreducible complexity has no scientific support

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but the fact that IC has no scientific support from (is not supported by) evolutionists should come as no big surprise.

it is a mere ploy made by creationists.

So it's a conspiracy? Move over Freaky, you're not alone.

Punctuated equilibrium is viable, afaik.

Look into it's history, and find out why it became a supporting theory. It's basically a patch, to fill in the gaps where evidence of intermediary species should exist but cannot be found. Also check out the Cambrian and pre-Cambrian periods, and see if punctuated equilibrium can explain what is often referred to as the "Cambrian explosion".

Originally posted by @lemon-lime

Punctuated equilibrium is viable, afaik.

Look into it's history, and find out why it became a supporting theory. It's basically a patch, to fill in the gaps where evidence of intermediary species should exist but cannot be found. [/b]

No, if look into it's history and not your false history of it, the theory come about because the fossil record clearly shows it to be true. This doesn't in any way contradict the core of the theory of evolution itself, which says nothing about the rate of evolution.
That is just how science works; the theories are modified to fit the evidence, not the evidence modified modified to fit the theories.

+ We have discovered many fossilized missing links and some of those missing links are still alive today. Thus it wouldn't make any sense to suggest some kind of conspiracy to explain away the absence of missing links, because they aren't absent; they are there to see and they have been discovered. I will show references of that on request.

Originally posted by @apathist
Punctuated equilibrium is viable, afaik.

I can improve on that statement;
I have personally intensively read and researched this very subject over the net (purely because I find it a fascinating subject) and I can tell you that punctuated equilibrium is more than "viable" because, trust me, it is a proven scientific fact with overwhelming evidence (proof, in fact) not only from the fossil record but recent observations of recent evolution in living things that are still alive today. There is also evidence from various other sources;

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/24398/title/Genetic-evidence-for-punctuated-equilibrium/
"...Evidence for punctuated equilibrium lies in the genetic sequences of many organisms,..."

etc.

I would personally say that he evidence for punctuated equilibrium is almost as great as that for evolution itself!

For anyone that is interested in real science;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Originally posted by @apathist
Except that I am not wrong here. Irreducible complexity has no scientific support, it is a mere ploy made by creationists. Punctuated equilibrium is viable, afaik.

I am not wrong here. Punctuated equilibrium has no scientific support, it is a mere ploy made by evolutionists. Irreducible complexity is viable, afaik.

religion -------> Spirituality Forum

consensus/politics -------> Debates Forum

natural materialism/atheism -------> Science Forum





philosophy ---------> [?]

Originally posted by @humy
No, if look into it's history and not your false history of it, the theory come about because the fossil record clearly shows it to be true. This doesn't in any way contradict the core of the theory of evolution itself, which says nothing about the rate of evolution.
That is just how science works; the theories are modified to fit the evidence, not the eviden ...[text shortened]... they are there to see and they have been discovered. I will show references of that on request.

doesn't in any way contradict the core of the theory of evolution

Why would anyone think PE contradicts the theory of evolution?
And by the way, if evolution is ever proven wrong then there are no gaps in the fossil record.

the core of the theory of evolution... says nothing about the rate of evolution.

Your point?
Varying rates of evolution is exactly what PE introduces into and adds to the theory of evolution. In the same breath it appears you are both verifying and disavowing your take on PE.



I didn't put up a huge intimidating wall of text, I simply suggested apathist look into this for himself. He doesn't need either one of us telling him what to think. And so what if my opinion doesn't match up with yours or his? I seem to have the advantage of knowing the difference between speculation and fact, but so what... the 'advantage' appears to be ineffective and void in this *cough* particular venue.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
It's so freaky that there people who say they brag about how much science they know and at the same time are so ignorant in science.

"Brag?"
There have been three people on this forum who have openly proclaimed their proficiency and alleged mastery in the field of science, not a single one of whom has been able to distinguish themselves within the forum as much more than looking for arguments they think will make them look smarter than they consider themselves.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
I am not wrong here. Punctuated equilibrium has no scientific support, it is a mere ploy made by evolutionists. Irreducible complexity is viable, afaik.

Isn't this scientific support for punctuated equilibrium? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

If not, why not?

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
Punctuated equilibrium has no scientific support.

for anyone that has bothered to google this, very clearly false. How do you explain the vast mountain of evidence for punctuated equilibrium? Here is just a small sample of that;

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/24398/title/Genetic-evidence-for-punctuated-equilibrium/

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1232

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00458.x/full
"...evidence for punctuated equilibrium came from the fossil record. ..."

http://www.humansintheuniverse.net/03/16.asp
"The evidence that supports punctuated equilibrium is in the fossil records. There is very little evidence of gradual change in most species in the fossil record,.."

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/benton/reprints/2003eolss.html
"...evidence for punctuated speciation events,...
...The morphometric data provide convincing evidence ...
"

http://evomech1.blogspot.co.uk/2006/10/genetic-evidence-for-punctuated.html

http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/punctuated-equilibria.html
"...The evidence for punctuated equilibria is based on thousands and thousands of fossils covering millions of years. It required a complete fossil record. It has nothing whatsoever to do with gaps in the fossil record. It's the exact opposite of gaps!
..."

http://www.paulhensel.org/Research/jcr00.pdf
"...empirical evidence supports the punctuated equilibrium ..."
"...evidence for punctuated equilibrium ..."

Tell us, how is such scientific evidence NOT scientific support for punctuated equilibrium?

That punctuated equilibrium happens is very clearly to all that have bothered to just look up the evidence a proven scientific fact.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Isn't this scientific support for punctuated equilibrium? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

If not, why not?

No, it's actually scientific support for the extraordinarily punched up by gamma rays and energy nitrogen-infused...
Super Duper Punctuated Equilibrium !!

( is not the same think as punkychewaited equilibrarianism )




Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'll look at your link when I have more time.

Originally posted by @humy
for anyone that has bothered to google this, very clearly false. How do you explain the vast mountain of evidence for punctuated equilibrium? Here is just a small sample of that;

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/24398/title/Genetic-evidence-for-punctuated-equilibrium/

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1232

ht ...[text shortened]... is very clearly to all that have bothered to just look up the evidence a proven scientific fact.

Tell us, how is such scientific evidence NOT scientific support for punctuated equilibrium?

Tell us, how is it you are unable to explain ANY of this in your own words?