Originally posted by @freakykbhThat is nonsense. There were no living beings, and then there were. Therefore abiogenesis happened.
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.
You cannot deny the second premise. Convince me that the big bang had living creatures in it.
Originally posted by @freakykbhIt'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.
No, it's not nonsense.
The operative word here is FROM.
Start there.
Originally posted by @apathistExcept that I am not wrong here.
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.
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".
3 edits
Originally posted by @lemon-limeNo, 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.
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]
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.
1 edit
Originally posted by @apathistI can improve on that statement;
Punctuated equilibrium is viable, afaik.
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 @apathistI am not wrong here. Punctuated equilibrium has no scientific support, it is a mere ploy made by evolutionists. Irreducible complexity is viable, afaik.
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.
2 edits
Originally posted by @humydoesn't in any way contradict the core of the theory of evolution
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.
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"Brag?"
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.
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-limeIsn't this scientific support for punctuated equilibrium? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
I am not wrong here. Punctuated equilibrium has no scientific support, it is a mere ploy made by evolutionists. Irreducible complexity is viable, afaik.
If not, why not?
Originally posted by @lemon-limefor 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;
Punctuated equilibrium has no scientific support.
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.
1 edit
Originally posted by @wildgrassNo, it's actually scientific support for the extraordinarily punched up by gamma rays and energy nitrogen-infused...
Isn't this scientific support for punctuated equilibrium? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
If not, why not?
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 @humyTell us, how is such scientific evidence NOT scientific support for punctuated equilibrium?
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 it you are unable to explain ANY of this in your own words?