"OK, lets take your pre-Siluran or more correctly pre-cambrean fossils, the cambrean explosion is so called because you have a five million year period where you go from Microbes, and simple (and small) worms to vertebrates and eyes, sockets and all. There is no way gradual evolution happened there, this is why the theory of punctuated equilibrium was invented (where the mutations build up and POW you get a bunch of advances all at once.) Unfortunately, punctuated equilibrium ignores the survival of the fittest part that weeds out the loser DNA so you should have way more spectacular failures than successes, and the fossil layer does not bear that out either."
The Cambrian Explosion lasted from 12 million to 20 million years. Your underestimates aren't impressive. Fossilization is rare; since the successes accumulate and the failures are weeded out by natural selection, statistically, paleontologists are far more likely to find "successful" fossils. And what do you mean by successful anyway? Many fossils are a) lead to a dead-end b) were an intermediate that eventually lead to a dead-end c) are ancestors of today's organisms.
Also, only simple worms, microbes and such? You mind explaining complex Ediacaran metazoa such as Cyclomedusa, Arkarua, Spriggina, or Eoporpita? Hardly.
"I understand why you would not want to understand, that if you don’t have life, you have nothing got mutate, so if you don’t have Abiogenesis, you don’t have Darwinism. You separating them is like saying, I was talking about cars, not vehicles. (Darwin must have Abiogenesis or it breaks down."
Wrong; that's akin to saying that meteorologists have to account for the universal origin of water and air. It's a fallacious argument.
"It was a hybrid."
There's an entire section of plant speciation *not* involving hybridization.
"So, the god of Darwinism is a pink unicorn?
Let me make this simple for you, Abiogenesis life occurring naturally from chemicals, anything else (ergo not forming naturally) is ID. If you are saying ID is not true, you must support Abiogenesis.
Dichotomies happen all the time in Science, It’s one way of proving something, oh yeah, you don’t believe in “proof” unless it proves Darwin was right."
No, you're wrong. If ID is wrong, that does not make science correct. That you know nothing about the philosophy of science does not suddenly make your points correct. If evolution were shown to be inaccurate, ID would not be correct. ID *must* have several lines of strong *positive* evidence.
"No, the Thread started for me with a slam on Ann Coulter, I am now only quoting Fellow Scientists as to why they support Darwin. (if I had said “Everyone knows…” or “As you know…” Then I would be speaking from authority, now I am only quoting self proclaimed authorities which is entirely different."
You're giving what some people say, not the evidence. Sorry, but that isn't going to fly.
"Then present some, and not the Tripe you already tried to pass, real hard evidence."
Explain:
A) Multiple identical ERV insertion at identical sites in human and chimp genomes
B) Confirmed prediction of chromosomal fusion in humans with sub-telomeric duplications
C) Confirmed prediction of oxygen isotope ratios of early cetaceans matching those of modern dolphins
D) 98.5% of our genome consists of noncoding DNA, ERVs, and pseudogenes
E) The existence of protein functional redundancy and redundant pseudogenes
F) Humans and chimps genomes are 98% identical
G) Et cetra...
"Yes it is (Grin, no is not a very good persuader)"
It's a scientific theory. A course in the philosophy of science might be in order.
"And knitting circles too; neither one proves Evolution is a Law, or even remotely correct."
The theory of evolution isn't a law and was never intended to be. Law's are the not the end-all-be-all of science; theories are. If all we had are laws, we'd be describing natural phenomena around us, but we'd never be able to explain why they happen.
"I am talking about proof, truth, and reality
Try this on for size: we (homo sapiens) are here. We got here some how. (These are true statements) how we got here that is the mystery. You keep saying you know how, well, prove it is more real than the Pink unicorn you were just talking about."
There is no proof in science nor any measures of absolute truth. This allows science to change because scientists understand that the results of their research may not see the whole picture and may be inaccurate. We've got: A) fossil evidence B) comparative genomics C) morphological/embryological/molecular phylogenies D) identical ERV insertions with chimps E) chromosomal fusion in #2 chromosome F) Et cetra.
I see plenty of evidence for evolution. You have any for ID?
"It is the First step to Atheism, see my quote from Godless, Atheists think it is great, and Atheism has been rules a religion by a federal court."
Atheism is a philosophical viewpoint; evolution is a scientific theory. That's a non-sequitur.
"If they will accept this stuff then they can just switch to the pink unicorn theory."
Nice red herring. But you never actually responded to that.
"Yes but this is #1 in the five dictionaries refenced by Dictionary.com (To borrow your methodology of Argumentum ad vercundiam) is accepted by all intelligent people as the only definition of consequence. (That how it’s done, now if you disagree you are unintelligent)"
That doesn't matter. Dictionaries seldom have accurate scientific definitions that would be pertinent to a scientific context.
"From Grade 8 Chicago public schools
CAS B.
8. Distinguish fact from opinion and science from pseudoscience (e.g., astronomy vs. astrology). (http://intranet.cps.k12.il.us/Standards/CAS/CAS_Science/Science_8th_Grade/8-SG11-Science/8-sg11-science.html) "
Correct. That's relevant how?
"I know, I’ll give you an answer even a eighth grader could understand. I’m making brownies (even if you don’t normally like brownies you do for this example) While I’m making brownies, I add some Dog Poop (now there’s lots of brownie mix, and only a teaspoon of poop) I bake them in the oven, and so all bacteria would have been killed anyway, want one?
I knew you wouldn’t.
Darwinism is like brownie mix, there are lots of good important things there mixed in with the dog poop. The problem is you expect me to swallow the whole thing."
Non-sequitur. You haven't elaborated much on the problems at all; and much of the problems you present are distortions.
"
Section 5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy
I went back and looked; I still did not see anything that was speciation I did see hybridization (even though they said the didn’t in the title) This is the same way hybrids are grown now in the Midwest, control the neighbors, control the pollination (Trust me on this one, I worked for a seed company (Corn or Maize if you prefer), they cheated on this “Proof” too.) My declaration that this site is a pant load stands."
What you saw was hybridization *after* reproductive isolation was establish to check for the compatibility between the species.
"Pick one, you can’t have it both ways (Fake but accurate…) "
Wrong. It's a theory in that it is a well-supported explanation of a broad series of related facts on the diversity of life, and it is a fact in that there is the well-supported direct and indirect observation of it and the evidence is so overwhelming that it would be "perverse to withold provisional consent." (Gould)
"Let’s just go back to the Pre- and Cambrean, shall we?
Pre- cambrean = No invertebrates, no eyes.
Cambrean = invertebrates and eyes.
The Cambrean was 5 billion years, so using accepted Genetic numbers for mutations, how long will it take to mutate an Eye from no eye? (Hint, you have a time issue)"
12-20 million years, not 5. Also, you seem to suggest that evolution works similarly to a brute-force search. No, variation is introduced and selection selects the variation and allows species to converge. Mutations are backed by not only selection, but gene flow, recombination, genetic drift, and duplication. All of these factors speed up evolution anyway and 12-20 million years is plenty of time.
"Until Darwinists can explain all the questions like these, you will have a theory that MUST accept criticism, and until you can repeat it in an independent way and tell others how to duplicate your experiment Darwinism will always be a theory."
I think I just answered them.
The Cambrian Explosion lasted from 12 million to 20 million years.
“The Cambrian Period marks an important point in the history of life on earth; it is the time when most of the major groups of animals first appear in the fossil record. This event is sometimes called the "Cambrian Explosion", because of the relatively short time over which this diversity of forms appears.”
It depends on how you calculate the time, if you go strictly by the geologic formation, you end up with five million years, if you look at the fossils and some of the other surrounding strata, you conclude it was “12 to 20 million. It depends on who you want to trust. This is precisely why I used this period, people disagree over it’s length (that dog poop I was talking about, not only that but you said they all agree.)
>> Also, only simple worms, microbes and such? You mind explaining complex Ediacaran metazoa such as Cyclomedusa, Arkarua, Spriggina, or Eoporpita? Hardly.
Yep, very simple organisms, worms, and things measured in millimeters,
“These rocks, grouped under the term, Precambrian, contain only micro-fossils, principally single-celled bacteria and algae. The Cambrian rocks contain a wealth of complex fossils as indicated above. Where, then, are the intermediate forms which represent the greater part of the history of evolution? They are nowhere to be found. This is the most striking and, to evolutionists, the most perplexing gap in the fossil record.4 Darwin admitted this,5 and for over a century paleontologists have searched without success for fossils to fill the gap.”
Italicized sections taken from
http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder7.htm
Then in (we’ll use your figure, because it just doesn’t matter) 20 million years we have invertebrates.
“The rocks containing the reportedly oldest assemblage of marine invertebrate species are called Cambrian rocks. The fossils are supposed to represent "simple, primitive" forms. In actuality many of the Cambrian creatures are highly organized and complex, and some are almost indistinguishable from modern forms. Furthermore, in the Cambrian rocks are found 2000 or more fossil species. They represent every major phylum or grouping of animal life, including the vertebrate fish.3 The Ediacaran rock formation in Australia, supposedly a little older than Cambrian rocks, contains an assortment of strange invertebrate fossil forms for the most part unrelated to the Cambrian fossils. However, this does not change the lesson learned from the Cambrian rocks.
The supposedly oldest rocks containing unambiguous fossils of complex creatures composed of many cells include thousands of different complex species. Evolutionists refer to this as "the Cambrian explosion." But according to evolution one would expect a limited number of very simple kinds, if any organism can really be considered simple.”
All the suddenly “poof” you have Fish complete with eyes. How long does it take to evolve eyes? (Hint more than 20 million years, if ever)
Let’s talk about sight. Consider the need for a nerve, to carry the signal, the brain capable of using the sight, and then they eye itself before any of that becomes useful. All this from “Survival of the fittest", what’s more fit about having a brain capable of seeing if you don’t have an eye to see with? All this in 20 million years?
Two words “Get Real”.
On whether “A biogenesis” is part of Darwin’s’ theory…
>>Wrong; that's akin to saying that meteorologists have to account for the universal origin of water and air. It's a fallacious argument.
You are fallacious in your argument.
If you have no life, you have nothing to evolve. If life did not happen with out a super intelligence, than why did this Super intelligence leave it to evolution to work slowly and without help (Cambrian Explosion = ID?)
Speciation:
>>>> "It was a hybrid."
>>There's an entire section of plant speciation *not* involving hybridization.
Yep, read that, it was a hybrid they were saying was not a hybrid. They were controlling pollination, so it was not in nature, and it was a hybrid.
Calling a hybrid “Not a hybrid” doesn’t make it so; any more than putting lipstick on a pig makes it Helen Thomas (close though).
>> Let me make this simple for you, Abiogenesis life occurring naturally from chemicals, anything else (ergo not forming naturally) is ID. If you are saying ID is not true, you must support Abiogenesis.
I am specifically not saying. I am waiting for you to prove Evolution happened and should be a law, and no more theories need to be heard. You might have noticed the title of this thread is that “Critics of Evolution Can’t be silenced” Not I can make their theories look as stupid as mine is. You say these critics can be silenced (The bit about denying Darwin is like sticking you fingers in your ears and yelling that you can’t hear), so without me trying to promote anything, silence my criticism (your not doing so well, maybe you should call for help)
>> Explain:
>>A) Multiple identical ERV insertion at identical sites in human and chimp genomes
>>B) Confirmed prediction of chromosomal fusion in humans with sub-telomeric duplications
>>C) Confirmed prediction of oxygen isotope ratios of early cetaceans matching those of modern dolphins
>>D) 98.5% of our genome consists of noncoding DNA, ERVs, and pseudogenes
>>E) The existence of protein functional redundancy and redundant pseudogenes
>>F) Humans and chimps genomes are 98% identical
>>G) Et cetra...
Etcetera, meaning more of the same:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Etcetera (Grin, same what? Remember, I am not saying I have an answer just that you don’t either.)
I am not a proponent here, I am not stating an opinion one way or another just analyzing your attempts to show Evolution should not have to face competition are not well founded
>> It's a scientific theory. A course in the philosophy of science might be in order.
You are the one who was using “Theory” and “Law” interchangeably. “The Theory of Gravity, “The Theory of the Atomic Nature of Matter
>>There is no proof in science nor any measures of absolute truth.
So, you can’t prove your point, Got it. (If you don’t believe anything can be proven, why are you arguing a point of view? You could be doing something like observing a sunset without asserting it to be beautiful (can’t prove it anyway)
Let me give you an absolute truth. You Exist. OK, I proved that one wrong too. (If you are going to argue that you don’t exist, well, Grin good luck (If you don’t exist, who’s making the argument, but if you …)
>>This allows science to change because scientists understand that the results of their research may not see the whole picture and may be inaccurate.
Yep, “Science” is a history filled with “we were wrong” not a good indicator for accuracy now, or in the future. (Trust us we’ve proven ourselves wrong 1,234,256 times so we must be right this time, we’re due!)
(Please not in t truly statistical universe everything possible must happen, there for ID must be true some percentage of the time and Some present Evolution, and Aliens, and Pink unicorns…) Boy am I glad we don’t live in a truly statistical universe.
Your stuff in quotes””
“We've got: “(Brownies)
“A) fossil evidence “(With Gaps – and time frames that don’t match the geologic record, or Dog poop)
“B) comparative genomics” (coincidence, or design as evidence – Dog Poop)
“C) morphological/embryological/molecular phylogenies” (pseudo science passed as science {have you seen where that embryo stuff came from, hint it was a hoax}– Dog Poop)
“D) identical ERV insertions with chimps” (so God, aliens {pink unicorns not excluded} or evolution(chance) did that – Dog poop)
“E) chromosomal fusion in #2 chromosome” (see the response from D)
“F) Et cetra.” (more dog poop)
Sorry, can’t swallow that, too much poop there for my taste.
>> I see plenty of evidence for evolution. You have any for ID?
Um, you ARE almost making a better argument for ID than for evolution, but I’m not promoting ID, or any other theory, remember?
>>>>"It is the First step to Atheism, see my quote from Godless, Atheists think it is great, and Atheism has been ruled a religion by a federal court."
>>Atheism is a philosophical viewpoint; evolution is a scientific theory.
Not according the government, Atheists are allowed to practice their religion in prison by not being confronted by crosses; they have to have an empty room available for their worship (or non worship). (I read about this on Free Republic so you know it’s true) / Humor
>>That's a non-sequitur.
Now you’re an English teacher wow you are evolving right before my eyes, um keyboard.
>> That doesn't matter. Dictionaries seldom have accurate scientific definitions that would be pertinent to a scientific context.
So, when you and the dictionary, or geologic record, or logic disagrees, I should pick you right? (In your dreams)
>> Non-sequitur. You haven't elaborated much on the problems at all; and much of the problems you present are distortions.
I’m not trying to give alternate explanations, although some of the material I am using does, I am just pointing out problems with your theory, which is why it has no right to demand competing theories not be taught.
So instead of addressing the points made by my analogy, you tell me it’s off topic. OK, not at all persuasive, but hey present the case for Darwin however you think best.
>>you seem to suggest that evolution works similarly to a brute-force search.
Let’s see, slow, huge numbers, unpredictable results, yep it does bear a resemblance!
>>No, variation is introduced and selection selects the variation and allows species to converge.
Survival of the fittest is true because the fittest survive, how do we know what was most fit, easy it’s the one that survives. (My dad taught me that something that can’t be proven wrong, usually is) Tautology
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Tautology
>>Mutations are backed by not only selection, but gene flow, recombination, genetic drift, and duplication.
Selection by whom…
Gene flow (is statistically non existent, Random mutations are random, or they are ID),
Recombination and Duplication are anti evolutionary forces.
All of these factors speed up evolution anyway and 12-20 million years is plenty of time.
Ha Ha Ha! Exactly how many “Steps” are there in the formation of an eye from a creature with no eye? (The answer has lots of zeros, but no one is sure)
>> "Until Darwinists can explain all the questions like these, you will have a theory that MUST accept criticism, and until you can repeat it in an independent way and tell others how to duplicate your experiment Darwinism will always be a theory."
>> I think I just answered them.
“You’d like to think that wouldn’t you!” (Have you seen the movie “Princess Bride”? If not you won’t get this quote.)
It’s not whether or not you think you answered the question. I am not arguing, just poking logical arguments in your statements. The true measure of whether or not you have proved your point is do I (the person you are explaining it to) think so, sadly, no you have not made an unimpeachable case, or even a good case for that matter.
Let me make a real simple point, from the KISS school of thought.
The second law of thermodynamics can be stated as Entropy in a closed system must always increase to its maximum.
(Yes Talk Origins tries to cover the issue at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html)
But the simple fact is that energy that is not directed only increases entropy by adding energy to the system.
Back to my Bicycle analogy
Bicycles rust, rust never turns into bicycles.
If you add heat to the system from the outside, but just heat, you end up with melted rust (and a melted bicycle) and you have not created a bicycle from rust, but you can destroy an existing bicycle.
This is about as basic as it gets, (A bicycle in its most complex form is simpler than the simplest cell).
So far the Pink unicorn looks more rational than Evolution, when do we start teaching it in school?