Anyone Still Believing in the Evolution Fraud Should Watch This

[Sherlock Holmes]

Every shred of evidence shows they can and have.

How do you know they did so naturalistically?

So this is a bizarre post by you that rightfully makes one wonder if you have run out of arguments and are now just being reflexively contrarian.

Good, I'm glad my words seem bizarre, having one's fairy take make believe world shaken up can be shocking, can feel bizarre, you need to embrace that feeling and snap out of the daydream.

 

[progressive hunter]

Can I prove my claim? No. Is there abundant evidence from multiple scientific disciplines? Yes.

Lack of an alternative theory is just more evidence. “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth” is a quote by Sherlock Holmes.

all that evidence is opinions based on assumptions with a predetermined outcome,,

tell me youre not basing your POV on a fictional character??

of course you could walk me through this common ancestor that gave birth to two different beings that split the lineage,,

can you do that??

 

[alang1216]

Listen to James Tour, he emphasizes that time is an enemy of abiogenesis not a friend. The kinds of molecules involved in the building of these structures are unstable, even if by 1 in a trillion chance some enzyme was by fluke, able to form it would decay within a short time, perhaps hours, perhaps days but very short. Unless that were then fortuitously to take part in yet another vanishingly unlikely step there's no prospect of "gradual" increasing complexity.

You like to demand proof. What proof does Tour offer?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Correct. Any definition is arbitrary. You can invent "working definitions".

Yes arbitrary in the sense that we are abstracting reality, we are artificially decomposing reality into abstractions. To design a city one has to have "roads" and "houses" and so on, these are abstractions and have definitions that are suitable for problem being solved, this is how humans think, this is what scientists do, they abstract.

Life has a definition, and it has a definition in origin of life studies and medicine and biology and organic chemistry, the definitions pertain to the problem domains, each domain has a definition that suits that domain.

Like defining a human. To ask when the first human existed is a meaningless question.

Right but you must be able to distinguish between a human and a bookcase, so there's always an implicit definition.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How do you know they did so naturalistically?

We don't. We assume a deterministic universe that follows natural laws. Because allowing for magical nonsense makes science useless.

And clearly it's pretty useful.

That's one reason magical nonsense has no place in science or in rational discussion. Once you play the magic card, you have disqualified yourself from any discussion relying on concepts like causality and evidence.

 

[alang1216]

Yes that's a fine idea, I had no problem with that, but there are things that defy naturalistic explanations, the absence of ancestral forms in the Cambrian fossil record is one example. If those diverse animals had evolved as we are told they did, we would not find what we do, the observations are completely inconsistent with the claims made by the evolution devotees.

There was life before the Cambrian explosion and there was life afterwards. Do you expect a continuous fossil record going back over 500 million years? That makes this a 'God of the gaps' argument but I doubt you change your thinking if older fossils are found today that fill in that gap. You do know the 'explosion' occurred over tens of millions of years I trust.

 

[alang1216]

If someone made a claim about say general relativity and said of Einstein "I got his point, I just think he is completely wrong" and that person was not a mathematical physicist or applied mathematician, do you think he'd be taken very seriously by anyone other than cranks?

Plenty of people said exactly that about Einstein, and some of them were correct.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do you expect a continuous fossil record going back over 500 million years?

That's a common way that YECs try to rig the game.

They don't have a good grasp on the timescales involved or of the rarity of fossils.

 

[alang1216]

Any system capable of evolving is already unfathomably complex, to design and build a system capable of that kind of physical automatic self improvement is itself unattainable, this is what Tour speaks about, wakes people up to the reality, the scale of the difficulty.

'Unfathomable' to 'unattainable' to who? What proof does he offer? What is truly unfathomable is how long evolution has been working on the life of Earth.

 

[progressive hunter]

There was life before the Cambrian explosion and there was life afterwards. Do you expect a continuous fossil record going back over 500 million years? That makes this a 'God of the gaps' argument but I doubt you change your thinking if older fossils are found today that fill in that gap. You do know the 'explosion' occurred over tens of millions of years I trust.

the fossil record not only doesnt exist,, all fossils prove is something died,,
it doesnt prove it gave birth to a totally different kind of animal/person,

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

'Unfathomable' to 'unattainable' to who? What proof does he offer? What is truly unfathomable is how long evolution has been working on the life of Earth.

No proof is offered. These are monetized appeals to the emotion and ignorance of nonscientists.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

That does not in any way defy naturalistic observations. Fossils are rare.

That's not true, fossil beds are relatively rare, but within those fossil beds also called Lagerstätte, fossils can be plentiful:

The exceptional palaeontological evidence of the Chengjiang Fossil Site is unrivalled for its rich species diversity. To date at least 16 phyla, plus a variety of enigmatic groups, and about 196 species have been documented. Taxa recovered range from algae, through sponges and cnidarians to numerous bilaterian phyla, including the earliest known chordates. The earliest known specimens of several phyla such as cnidarians, ctenophores, priapulids, and vertebrates occur here. Many of the taxa represent the stem groups to extant phyla and throw light on characteristics that distinguish major taxonomic groups.

It is within these beds that we find the sudden appearance, of many shelly Cambrian fossils, they are just there, in preceding layers we know preservation conditions were superb because we find amoeba fossils, jellyfish fossils and other soft bodied delicate life fossils.

If the Cambrian fossils had ancestors they'd be there.

Also, the fossils of ancestors of the major phylum lines generally existed before the cambrian and are documented in the fossil record.

Consider Anomalocaris:

As big as a Labrador, this animal - we are told - evolved. Therefore these specimens must have had parents and the parents will have had parents and so on. At some prior point in the past there will have been ancestors that visually differed, perhaps smaller eyes, shorter jaws, smaller size and so on, if we saw these they'd look a lot like Anomalocaris (shells, eyes etc) but would be visually quite distinct, a human could look at them and see one was an obvious ancestor.

Given the excellent preservation conditions in some of these fossil beds (Chengjiang, Qingjiang etc) there is no good reason for never ever seeing any examples of any kind of credible, ancestor fossils. The only things preserved always look like Anomalocaris.

This (and there are hundreds of other examples) is why they call it an "explosion".

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

We don't.

Good, neither do I.

We assume a deterministic universe that follows natural laws.

Yes until we encounter observations that are inconsistent with that assumption.

Because allowing for magical nonsense makes science useless.

And clearly it's pretty useful.

That's one reason magical nonsense has no place in science or in rational discussion. Once you play the magic card, you have disqualified yourself from any discussion relying on concepts like causality and evidence.

Tell me, to what do you attribute determinism? why does determinism exist? You cannot rationally say that determinism arose from determinism, we have to consider that it arose from a state of non-determinism and therefore we can conclude that there are non deterministic agencies that gave rise to determinism, to laws.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You like to demand proof. What proof does Tour offer?

of what exactly? of decay rates? these are known, chemists know these rates.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

That's what he is counting on: Beguiling nonexperts with monetized youtube videos, instead of a formal dispute using published science.

Why doesn't he publish his science about these problems? Despite your deceptive attempt earlier, it is a fact that he has not done so.

Ad hominem, your a waste of time, insincere and dishonest. You cannot reject an argument about nature on the basis of the personal traits of the one presenting the argument, that's not science that's prejudice, cowardice.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If someone made a monetized youtube video for nonscientists instead of publishing science, do you think he would be taken seriously by any scientist?

Tour is one of the most published scientists.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No proof is offered. These are monetized appeals to the emotion and ignorance of nonscientists.

There are hundreds of scientists using Youtube to communicate ideas to non-scientists, why single out Tour?

Dawkins has over twice the number of followers as Tour, FYI.

By your "argument" we must regard Tyson's and Dawkins' videos and claims as not science, just greed, yes?

You have a deep intellectual handicap Fort Fun Indiana that is you are fixated on the mere suggestion that naturalism cannot explain nature, everything you say is nothing more than an attempt to discredit that idea, it is that idea that you hate and that hate has blinded you, it overrides any actual reasoning skills you might have. The more you post the more it becomes clear that it is prejudice that defines you, not science, not seeking truth, not rationality just prejudice against ideas.

That is EXACTLY how the Catholic authorities acted when dealing with Galileo, he too questioned things, dared to look at things in other ways, draw attention to things not appreciated at the time, it's called dogma and being a scientist does not prevent that sickness from developing in some people's minds.

 

[ReinyDays]

all that evidence is opinions based on assumptions with a predetermined outcome,,
tell me youre not basing your POV on a fictional character??
of course you could walk me through this common ancestor that gave birth to two different beings that split the lineage,,
can you do that??

This stuff growing in our refrigerator isn't "predetermined" ...

1962 ... a litter of 3 mutated kittens was born to a Scottish dairyman ... the mother was run over by a car and two kittens were spayed or neutered ... luckily a neighborhood cat fancier saw what happened and grabbed the last molly ... from which came all Scottish Fold house cats ... we can debate whether this is a new breed or not, but it's inarguable this is a new taxon, and a new lineage ...

This is extremely rare ... more likely new taxons come about from physical separations ... the uplifted Rockies Mountains divided the Sugar Maple population into two reproductive isolated populations; after 100 million years of genetic isolation, these are two distinct species today ... finches being blown out to sea and landing on remote Pacific Islands, again with complete isolation, these birds will transform to meet the needs of their new environment ... form new lineages on each of the islands they alight ...

What's missing in your arguments is the chemistry ... we can track these changes backwards through time just by sequencing the DNA and comparing ... at least back 2.2 billion years ... we can point to the DNA change that makes a Scottish Fold, and say how and why it mutated the way it did ... down to the individual atom and electron ... and we can go back 2.2 billion years drawing out the steps between pond scum and Albert Einstein ... easy, just prohibitively expensive ... but it's all chemistry ... not philosophy ...

The Bible says "blessed are the peacemakers" ... so maybe warring against evolution is a bad idea ... that's my philosophy ...

 

[progressive hunter]

This stuff growing in our refrigerator isn't "predetermined" ...

1962 ... a litter of 3 mutated kittens was born to a Scottish dairyman ... the mother was run over by a car and two kittens were spayed or neutered ... luckily a neighborhood cat fancier saw what happened and grabbed the last molly ... from which came all Scottish Fold house cats ... we can debate whether this is a new breed or not, but it's inarguable this is a new taxon, and a new lineage ...

This is extremely rare ... more likely new taxons come about from physical separations ... the uplifted Rockies Mountains divided the Sugar Maple population into two reproductive isolated populations; after 100 million years of genetic isolation, these are two distinct species today ... finches being blown out to sea and landing on remote Pacific Islands, again with complete isolation, these birds will transform to meet the needs of their new environment ... form new lineages on each of the islands they alight ...

What's missing in your arguments is the chemistry ... we can track these changes backwards through time just by sequencing the DNA and comparing ... at least back 2.2 billion years ... we can point to the DNA change that makes a Scottish Fold, and say how and why it mutated the way it did ... down to the individual atom and electron ... and we can go back 2.2 billion years drawing out the steps between pond scum and Albert Einstein ... easy, just prohibitively expensive ... but it's all chemistry ... not philosophy ...

The Bible says "blessed are the peacemakers" ... so maybe warring against evolution is a bad idea ... that's my philosophy ...

they were still cats,,

according to evo they could be any number of other things including a plant,,

the chemistry means nothing beings we re all from the same place created from the same ingredients,,

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

A cup of water is unfathomably complex, by the same standard.

This is specious appeal to emotion.

Do you actually know how to measure the complexity of something?