Haw! ANOTHER "missing link" discovered!

[abu afak]

abu afak said:
That's why you don't like 'Darwinism'.. it IS the Real Scientific evolution.
You only want to call 'evolution' a god-guided/DesignER process which is NOT the real scientific definition of evolution but Religion/theism with a designER.
You're a FRAUD twisting actual meaning to your own ID/Creationism from it's main theme: Darwin.

And again it's not only "designER," it's creationism, since 'species can't morph into one another' they must have been put/created here roughly as is.
Of course even then most of the "DesignER's" 'creations' have gone Extinct/Failed as design.

`

It isn't creationism.

If you want to argue with a creationist, you'll have to be patient and wait until one comes on the forum.

But it is ID which IS stealth Creationism (as my Wiki link explained a while back), leaving the usual speechless and 100 percent refuted.

So what we have left with is your unstated but obvious position Designer/god-guided evolution for which there is NO evidence and not lone Dawkins' BS "quote" to MISLEAD people with. In fact Dawkins said he Opposite of what you claim
That Design' is an "Illusion."

And while there is plenty of HARD EVIDENCE for Evolution there is NONE for a DesignER/god.

You are ergo factLess in a Science debate.
A BS artist with only Faith.
`
`

 

[Seymour Flops]

But it is ID which IS stealth Creationism (as my Wiki link explained a while back), leaving the usual speechless and 100 percent refuted.

So what we have left with is your unstated but obvious position Designer/god-guided evolution for which there is NO evidence and not lone Dawkins' BS "quote" to MISLEAD people with. In fact Dawkins said he Opposite of what you claim
That Design' is an "Illusion."

And while there is plenty of HARD EVIDENCE for Evolution there is NONE for a DesignER/god.

You are ergo factLess in a Science debate.
A BS artist with only Faith.
`
`

Your wiki link is wrong.

You need only answer one simple question:

Is there appearance of design in life on Earth, as Dawkins claimed?

 

[Hollie]

But it is ID which IS stealth Creationism (as my Wiki link explained a while back), leaving the usual speechless and 100 percent refuted.

So what we have left with is your unstated but obvious position Designer/god-guided evolution for which there is NO evidence and not lone Dawkins' BS "quote" to MISLEAD people with. In fact Dawkins said he Opposite of what you claim
That Design' is an "Illusion."

And while there is plenty of HARD EVIDENCE for Evolution there is NONE for a DesignER/god.

You are ergo factLess in a Science debate.
A BS artist with only Faith.
`
`

Thats really the laugh out loud part of the ID'creationer religion. Their entire presence in the science forum is to rail against science and knowledge. Without exception. The ID'iot creationers can't make a single, positive case for their religion, so they're left to screeching tirades about their hurt feelings that religious views aren't given credibility on science matters.

 

[ding]

Actually the two are no incompatible. I think what is happening is that slight successive changes don't take that long to appear and propagate, in terms of geologic time anyway. Once they're made and the selection pressure is relieved, stasis.

We may have had this discussion before but if there were many slight successive changes I would expect the geologic record to record it rather than record stasis.

 

[abu afak]

Your wiki link is wrong.

You need only answer one simple question:

Is there appearance of design in life on Earth, as Dawkins claimed?

Dawkins, like me, and that I already explained several times, "claimed" it's an "Illusion."
As I said, what's LEFT of Billions of FAILED MUTATIONS/EXTINCTIONS looks perfect, but is the result of trial and error/culling to fit current conditions.
`

 

[Seymour Flops]

Dawkins, like me, and that I already explained several times, "claimed" it's an "Illusion."
As I said, what's LEFT of Billions of FAILED MUTATIONS/EXTINCTIONS looks perfect, but is the result of trial and error/culling to fit current conditions.
`

So, why is is so hard to say "Yes, it has the appearance of design?"

Trial and error? Hm . . .

That's what it looks like to me also.

Who conducted the trials?

 

[abu afak]

So, why is is so hard to say "Yes, it has the appearance of design?"

Trial and error? Hm . . .

That's what it looks like to me also.

Who conductetely have the "appearance of desin"d the trials?

It doesn't remotely "have the appearance of design" to me.
Life is messy.
The Universe is messy.
Stars exploding, galaxies colliding (as we will with Andromeda)

Our bodies could be infinitely simpler.
We could be 'solid state' none of your unbelievably messy insides, no reproduction necessary, no birth defects (mutations), no cancer, no disease, etc x100.
In fact, IF humans were different ('in god's image') than other animals in composition, not just 1% DNA different, THAT would prove creation or 'design.' but alas we are not anything but a continuing small DNA increment as between all other species.

Hurricanes.
Invasive species all over the place.
Viruses.
How 'designed' has your/(others) life been the last 2 years?
`
Nonsense you FRAUD.
You deny hard evidence in favor of some faith/dream.

And if you had an IQ you would realize you can't prove or even evidence the supernatural on a message board, which is why sane people keep their religion to themselves (realizing it's faith), and we get the loonies here.

You're especially Dishonest as well with your word games, personal definitions, twisting, hidden "No Co-inkie-dinks"
You've been exposed as not just an errant believer, but a total charlatan.

PS: the OCD troll 'ding' is on ignore due to endless Stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat and already answered baits. Recently even following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, just to do the same. ie, Look at his 6, 7, 8. (now 20, 26, 32, and counting) vengeful out of control/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog even taking third party swipes as well as nonsense one-line 'replies.' He's GOT to have his Hate/endless losses sated.
`

 

[Hollie]

So, why is is so hard to say "Yes, it has the appearance of design?"

Trial and error? Hm . . .

That's what it looks like to me also.

Who conducted the trials?

There is no appearance of design. See, that was easy. I have to note that the religious extremists can't define anything in nature that displays the appearance of godly design.

The obvious question for the religious extremists is ''what in the natural world shows signs of godly design''? How do the religious extremists differentiate between nature and their claimed godly design?

How about the peculiar tilt / rotation of the planet which along with convection currents create twisters? Is that evidence of the gods design? The Chicxulub meteor? Evidence of one or more godly designs?

​

 

[alang1216]

We may have had this discussion before but if there were many slight successive changes I would expect the geologic record to record it rather than record stasis.

Then you'd be mistaken I think. How many genetic changes has the Covid virus had in the last few years? Would the fossil record being formed today be expected to record those changes?

 

[ding]

Then you'd be mistaken I think. How many genetic changes has the Covid virus had in the last few years? Would the fossil record being formed today be expected to record those changes?

That's a virus, dude. Besides it lends itself to the theory of rapid changes via genetic mutation.

Even Darwin acknowledged the lack of transitional fossils. He dismissed it as an imperfect fossil record which is a weak argument. The reality is that the fossil record shows long periods of stasis followed by rapid changes. Had Darwin known about genes he might have proposed a different mechanism.

 

[alang1216]

That's a virus, dude. Besides it lends itself to the theory of rapid changes via genetic mutation.

and natural selection determines which mutations or variations will survive

Even Darwin acknowledged the lack of transitional fossils. He dismissed it as an imperfect fossil record which is a weak argument. The reality is that the fossil record shows long periods of stasis followed by rapid changes. Had Darwin known about genes he might have proposed a different mechanism.

Darwin was right about the fossil record

 

[ding]

and natural selection determines which mutations or variations will survive


Darwin was right about the fossil record

Punctuated equilibrium says otherwise. Darwin dismisses the fossil record. Punctuated equilibrium explains the fossil record.

 

[alang1216]

Punctuated equilibrium says otherwise. Darwin dismisses the fossil record. Punctuated equilibrium explains the fossil record.

The fossil record in Darwin's day was very incomplete and revealed nothing at the time. It is only now, with a much richer fossil record we see PE. Again, I see no conflict between PE and natural selection, I see the time scale of them being too different.

 

[ding]

The fossil record in Darwin's day was very incomplete and revealed nothing at the time. It is only now, with a much richer fossil record we see PE. Again, I see no conflict between PE and natural selection, I see the time scale of them being too different.

Do you have a link to back up your assertion?

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In evolutionary biology, punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory that proposes that once a species appears in the fossil record, the population will become stable, showing little evolutionary change for most of its geological history.[1] This state of little or no morphological change is called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.

Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted with phyletic gradualism, the idea that evolution generally occurs uniformly by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (anagenesis).[2]

In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria.[1] Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's model of geographic speciation,[3] I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,[4] and their own empirical research.[5][6] Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin[7] is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.

 

[ding]

A year before their 1972 Eldredge and Gould paper, Niles Eldredge published a paper in the journal Evolution which suggested that gradual evolution was seldom seen in the fossil record and argued that Ernst Mayr's standard mechanism of allopatric speciation might suggest a possible resolution.[5]

 

[alang1216]

When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis.

So what is the mechanism for this "significant evolutionary change"?

 

[ding]

So what is the mechanism for this "significant evolutionary change"?

Genetic mutations.

Evolution in the weak-mutation limit: Stasis periods punctuated by fast transitions between saddle points on the fitness landscape

The gradual character of evolution is a key feature of the Darwinian worldview. However, macroevolutionary events are often thought to occur in a nongradualist manner, in a regime known as punctuated equilibrium, whereby extended periods of evolutionary stasis are punctuated by rapid transitions...

www.pnas.org

 

[alang1216]

Genetic mutations.

Random genetic mutations?

 

[ding]

Random genetic mutations?

How would a herd rapidly change if the mutations were random? Seems to me that the mutation would have to occur across the herd in significant numbers for it to take, right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How would a herd rapidly change if the mutations were random?

How long is each generation?