Evolution: the Facts.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

How do you back up what was said in forums like this when they no longer exist?

Ah, so what you're saying is that some people you used to debate with 10-20 years ago got something wrong, rather than that what they said is something that has ever been part of evolutionary science? It's a rather meaningless statement to make when you're trying to talk about evolutionary theory, but whatever floats your boat.

 

[randman]

Goes back further than that and some discussions predating the internet, at least as available to the public.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

But still nothing to do with the actual science or, indeed, anybody you're talking to on this board. So, in fact, completely irrelevant.

 

[Dinwar]

Dinwar, then how is you are unfamiliar with theories like front loading, Pierre Grasse's rejection of NeoDarwinism, Goldschmidt's rejection of ND based on his inability to replicate it and so advancing saltation, etc, etc,.....You seem completely unaware of the history and development of evolutionary thought and criticisms of it.

No. You're focusing on some fringe ideas, rather than the mainstream of evolutionary thought. I mean, front loading? Seriously? There's NO mechanism for it, and EVERY piece of geologic evidence indicates that it's flat-out wrong.

Please explain why we should take you seriously when you're focusing on a mere handful of fringe ideas, while refusing to read up on the basics of the theory (those books I linked to and which you have refused to read).

 

[randman]

I'll demonstrate how you are unfamiliar with the debate. Name on piece of geologic evidence disagreeing with front loading.

 

[Halfcentaur]

So far thunderchunky is the only evo poster here I'd found worth discussing the issue with. He appeared at least to read the paper and understand most of the reasoning of it, though there is this one point we disagree so far on. The rest went about chiding me for silly stuff they were wrong on like insisting the mammaliar ear did not emerge through convergent evolution (as far as evos are concerned) or that Pierre Grasse did not call "evolution" (meaning NeoDarwinism) a myth and a whole host of just plain factually mistaken concepts that's not really worth the time though I keep getting sucked in there.

It'd hard to discuss an idea with a group that ignorant of the history and concepts of the debate, especially when they don't want to learn.

You've even got people that say they are working scientists in the field who had never heard of front loading, never heard of Grasse's or Goldschmidt's objections and many others, seemed perplexed with the idea of a genome, insisted placentals evolved from marsupials, etc, etc,...and yet insist I am the ignorant one!

Making an announcement like this in a forum that you claim has only one person worth talking to in it shows exactly what your agenda has been all along. You are only concerned with finding evidence that supports what you want it to, and so far it seems telling other people they are wrong for not assisting you with that, asserting your superstitious beliefs with a cheap imitation of evidence. If you ever getting around to sharing your special ideas over how the universe and life came about, I'd wager it will be just as revealing. So far you've defended a literal interpretation of the bible, and condemned the Islamic world as being religiously instructed to have men bugger men.

You've also repeated some curious errors in your grammar, which makes me wonder if English is your first language, or if this is only another example of the Dunning-Krueger effect.

 

[Halfcentaur]

.

Halfcentaur, where did you see me claiming "I alone" had figured something out? I stopped reading there and will stop reading your responses.

I can't tell if you are just not following along or just making things up to try to provoke but am done with it. I don't want to get banned and reading your comments fabricating what I said, questioning my motives and maligning my character is not fun.

So if it makes you feel better posting something that I fail to respond to, nor read, then you can win.

Here is an example of where you reveal your privileged observations.

I like to look at the data and see what it does and does not say. I think people can make a decent argument for a number of models except ironically the one generally accepted, which absolutely flies in the face of all the facts and data we have.

Front-loading predicted what might be called super-genomes. That impressed me they were so bold and correct in their predictions and NeoDarwinism failed so miserably. But there are other areas of data.

Maybe common descent and evolution never happened in the first place. Common descent is a given assumption in most of these studies.

I could elaborate. Guess I would be considered an Intelligent Design theorist as far as my ideas, but it gets kind of complicated. I think the whole field whether evolutionist, front loading evolutionist (non-Darwinist), young earth creationist, old earth creationist, IDers, etc,....are still generally locked into a materialist perspective on reality outdated by modern physics.

But the NeoDarwinists are the worst in that regard.

But that would be a physics thread, and yes, I do have some ideas on how reality including life is generated.

 

[Dinwar]

I'll demonstrate how you are unfamiliar with the debate. Name on piece of geologic evidence disagreeing with front loading.

No. YOU are proposing a hypothesis, YOU provide the evidence. Though Nylonase is direct BIOLOGICAL evidence that frontal loading is wrong. It's a novel trait, one which the previous generations did not have. And we have those previous generations, so this was trivial to test.

 

[randman]

You proposed ALL of geologic evidence contradicted front loading. I cannot think of one and so assume you have no idea what you are talking about.

Can you name one piece of geologic evidence to back up YOUR CLAIM, not mine?

 

[Dinwar]

You proposed ALL of geologic evidence contradicted front loading. I cannot think of one and so assume you have no idea what you are talking about.

"I can present no data, therefore you're wrong."

Let's start big: The entire fossil record. Traits always follow evolutionary lineages. This is hypothesized via phylogenetic trees, and is proven via paleontology. Some great work just came out concerning sauropod head morphology, for example. While convergent evolution does make grossly similar features, careful examination alway shows the evolutionarly lineage of the features (look at wings, the ear, tail morphology in predators, etc). If front-loading were true one wouldn't expect novel traits to arise and continue in such a fashion; it would be much more haphazard.

ETA: Also, the fact that you cannot present evidence for the hypothesis you're supporting should cause you to question your hypothesis. MY evidence was presented yesterday, in the other thread, in the form of those books you STILL refuse to read. Shall I call you a fraud, a liar, and childishly insult you, or is that something only you're allowed to do (you know, like interpreting papers on subjects you have no knowledge of)? I've ALREADY presented the evidence, you merely refuse to actually look at it.

ETA2: Before we continue, please demonstrate that you actually have studied paleontology. I have--the referneces I posted are evidence of it, as is my job. I'll take your word for it if you say you've got a job as a paleontologist, or if you say you have a degree in the subject; but please provide something, so that I know you're actually qualified to discuss paleontology. Otherwise, admit that you have not, in fact, studied the subject, and are not an expert. I don't care one way or the other--your argument is wrong either way--I just want to you to recognize that you have NOT studied the subject, and are currently attempting to tell someone who HAS what the data mean.

 

[randman]

If front-loading were true one wouldn't expect novel traits to arise and continue in such a fashion; it would be much more haphazard.

Exact opposite. Convergent evolution is not likely via Darwinism. These plans appear to be embedded in the earlier genomes, a general pattern if you would.

 

[randman]

Also, the fact that you cannot present evidence for the hypothesis you're supporting should cause you to question your hypothesis. MY evidence was presented yesterday, in the other thread, in the form of those books you STILL refuse to read.

You are welcome to repost your books. Never really say where they were posted, probably didn't read your post or all of it due to some false claim of what I supposedly stated or how Pierre Grasse was a Darwinist or some other idiocy.

Post in without bogus stuff, I may get to it.

 

[randman]

Before we continue, please demonstrate that you actually have studied paleontology. I have--the referneces I posted are evidence of it, as is my job.

My bold.....this made me a chuckle a bit. You do realize we've been principally discussing genetics, not paleontology, on the threads I've been on. Glad to see you have a job, but gee man....

 

[John Jones]

My bold.....this made me a chuckle a bit. You do realize we've been principally discussing genetics, not paleontology, on the threads I've been on. Glad to see you have a job, but gee man....

Please learn to use to quote function.

 

[Halfcentaur]

.

Halfcentaur, where did you see me claiming "I alone" had figured something out? I stopped reading there and will stop reading your responses.

I can't tell if you are just not following along or just making things up to try to provoke but am done with it. I don't want to get banned and reading your comments fabricating what I said, questioning my motives and maligning my character is not fun.

So if it makes you feel better posting something that I fail to respond to, nor read, then you can win.

You've been shown to be a self admitted theological and philosophical unbranded maverick above, which you denied. So now I've quoted some of your exact words where you have best implicated this. You're "kind of complicated" and all, but maybe you can come down to my level and show me how I am mistaken in confusing your words?

The quoted words above demonstrate you are in fact a fringe theorist with your own personal privileged observations you alone have gathered in your insight, picking a little of this and a little of that. I never claimed you invented all your positions from scratch if you thought I was, I meant to imply you're clearly cherry picking from the tree whatever you can fit into the conclusion you decided the evidence should point to.

I've never heard of the Intelligent Design theory that gets "kind of complicated" before, maybe you can tell me how this isn't a personal amalgamation you've constructed based on your insight alone. Or maybe you could admit you do have your own personal version of these theories. Which is exactly what you claimed I was lying about when you get down to it.

Edit* Just so you don't have to scroll up again.

I like to look at the data and see what it does and does not say. I think people can make a decent argument for a number of models except ironically the one generally accepted, which absolutely flies in the face of all the facts and data we have.

Front-loading predicted what might be called super-genomes. That impressed me they were so bold and correct in their predictions and NeoDarwinism failed so miserably. But there are other areas of data.

Maybe common descent and evolution never happened in the first place. Common descent is a given assumption in most of these studies.

I could elaborate. Guess I would be considered an Intelligent Design theorist as far as my ideas, but it gets kind of complicated. I think the whole field whether evolutionist, front loading evolutionist (non-Darwinist), young earth creationist, old earth creationist, IDers, etc,....are still generally locked into a materialist perspective on reality outdated by modern physics.

But the NeoDarwinists are the worst in that regard.

But that would be a physics thread, and yes, I do have some ideas on how reality including life is generated.

 

[John Jones]

You proposed ALL of geologic evidence contradicted front loading. I cannot think of one and so assume you have no idea what you are talking about.

Are you familiar with the Appeal To Personal Incredulity logical fallacy?

 

[Dinwar]

You are welcome to repost your books. Never really say where they were posted, probably didn't read your post or all of it due to some false claim of what I supposedly stated or how Pierre Grasse was a Darwinist or some other idiocy.

Post in without bogus stuff, I may get to it.

I haven't posted ANY bogus stuff, and if you insist on refusing to read posts, why should any of us bother with you? Do you want a debate, or do you want to simply preach at us? Some of us here actually STUDY this stuff. The books I references were books from researchers who actively study this stuff for a living--the ones you accused (or rather, you say someone else accused) of fraud. Perhaps if you got down off the pedistol you've put yourself on you might actually learn something.

Go back and read the post yourself. If you're too lazy to do that you're too lazy to be involved in a debate like this.

Exact opposite. Convergent evolution is not likely via Darwinism.

Completely wrong. Buy a book on evolutionary theory by someone who actually studies the stuff, rather than the fringe loons you seem to prefer, and you'll learn why. (here's a hint: Organisms don't evolve in isolation)

My bold.....this made me a chuckle a bit. You do realize we've been principally discussing genetics, not paleontology, on the threads I've been on. Glad to see you have a job, but gee man....

You don't even try to read what other people post, do you? I've already explained to you: Molecular biology makes predictions. Paleontology tests them. Thanks for refusing to show that you have any qualifications for evaluating paleontological evidence, by the way--now I at least know where to calibrate my arguments.

 

[Wowbagger]

I'll demonstrate how you are unfamiliar with the debate. Name on piece of geologic evidence disagreeing with front loading.

I don't know if anything contradicts "front loading". But, I do know that the hypothesis tells us nothing we didn't already know.

ID's idea of front loading was really a reaction to the findings of evolutionary science: evo/devo more specifically.

Essentially, it became impossible for ID proponents to completely deny the wide variety of discoveries made by evolutionary biologists, so ID did a bit of a retcon and claimed "oh yeah, well that's just front loading!".

We see this all the time: Intelligent Design is always transforming its arguments based on discoveries made through evolutionary thinking. But, there has never been a moment where evolution ever had to rethink anything based on discoveries in I.D.

I.D. is not really doing science. They are ingesting the hard-won science from others, and twisting it into their own things. Like a parasite.

 

[Wowbagger]

Convergent evolution is not likely via Darwinism.

On the contrary: Darwinism would predict that similar selection pressures placed on life forms would yield similar adaptations, and that this is going to be true, no matter what the life form's ancestors looked like in the past.

And, we can even isolate and measure those selective elements, if we do a careful enough study. We can survey the niches, observe transformations in survival strategies, and so on.

The fact that you would say otherwise tells us more about your lack of knowledge regarding the Theory of Evolution, than it does about the origins of life, or the powers of Intelligent Design.

 

[randman]

Darwinism would predict that similar selection pressures placed on life forms would yield similar adaptations,

Darwinism predicts that but it's extremely unlikely that marsupial and placental pairs would emerge in such a similar fashion. It's hard to get evos to see this at first because you guys are taught so much to reaffirm simple claims.

What explanation, what environmental pressures, for example, were brought to bear to evolve the mammalian ear independently?