• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Evolution a hoax?

recovering puppy, evo theory actually didn't properly predict what we see in molecular studies so much so there are a constant, convoluted just-so stories invented to explain the lack of consistency with the theory. For example:
One example of this is the evolutionary history of placental mammals. In recent decades this history was investigated by comparing the DNA sequences from different placentals. But the results were conflicting. Now, recent research has once again investigated this evolutionary history, this time using the much touted DNA retroelements which promise to provide a much clearer picture. But again, evolutionists must resort to convoluted explanations in order to fit the data to their theory:

We believe that the most parsimonious interpretation of the current data is that the ancestral placental populations were characterized by severe ancestral subdivisions and rejoinings, leading to a complex mosaic of phylogenetic relationships in recent species. Effects of alternating divergence, hybridization, introgression, and incomplete lineage sorting might complicate our search for a clear dichotomy at the base of this tree and leave us with an indistinct, effective “soft” polytomy, leading sometimes to one or the other solution depending on the size of the data set and the particular markers examined.

Evolution is now its own best parody. Evolutionists think nothing of these sorts of explanations and repeatedly use them when needed. But elaborate explanations can always be contrived in order to explain observations. Why should we believe they are true?
Click to expand...

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/02/placental-evolutionary-tree-example-of.html
 
randman said:
You think genetic distance measurements still "confirm the family tree"? You ought to get up to speed a little more on that, at least if you are talking about things such as the proposed molecular clock, and even if you are talking relational distances, there are discrepancies which shouldn't be there.
Click to expand...

Harping on the "molecular clock" again, randman? Are you going to recycle all of your talking points from back in March?
 
I read much of his stuff. He is suggesting that Darwinism cannot account for folding sequences in certain enzymes. But, as I stated before, this is a micro-evolutionary-scale issue. This is not even an inter-species issue
Click to expand...

Wowbagger, what you are not seeing is that he is examining the probability of an earlier species evolving these features through Darwinian mechanisms and so is an inter-species issue. You just didn't grasp that point.
 
Creationism changed evo theory in respect to the fossil record by forcing evos after decades of denial to admit the fossil record shows stasis and sudden appearance.
Click to expand...
This is a lie. Punctuated equilibrium was developed by paleontologists who WERE NOT Creationists (Eldredge and Gould, predominantly), and who spoke out against Creationism constantly. Secondly, punctuated equilibrium is ONE of several tempos of evolution. There are others, as even a brief examination of the relevant literature (for example, foram evolution) amply illustrates.

Evos proposed the reason we don't actually see the transitions in the fossil record (sudden appearance) is because they happened so fast no fossils were left. They do not show, as you suggest, that the fossils show rapid transitions. They assume rapid transitions but admit the fossils themselves do not document that.
Click to expand...
More lies. We see all sorts of transitional fossils--for example, an entire transition from dog-like animal to whales, an entire transition from therapods to birds, even Eldredge and Gould's proof of PE (which included NO imput from Creationists--zero, none, nada, zip, zilch--and to state that Creationists have anything to do with PE is a lie) included clear transitional forms (I don't have a link to the paper, but when they looked at mollusks through time, on the left side of the tree, there were three transitional forms clearly shown). The idea that there are no, or even limited numbers of, transitional fossils can only be held in the absence of sufficient knowledge of the fossil record to have an informed opinion on the topic.

Please stop spreading flagrantly false information.
 
If anyone else is tired of these trite and false "arguments", I highly recommend the following link:

http://ncse.com/media/cej

Does a nice job of showing exactly what real scientists think of Creationism (and remember, ID has been clearly shown to be nothing more than Creationism in a thin disguise via at least one court case, where they took a Creationist "textbook" and replaced "Creationism" with "Intelligent Design", badly).
 
Randman:

I believe I've asked you before, but here goes again: Can you point me to any published scholarship of your own? Because I'm sure you're aware some of whom with which you are arguing certainly can theirs. If I wanted to read recycled Answers in Genesis crap and the like, I'd just go there.
 
randman said:
Wowbagger, what you are not seeing is that he is examining the probability of an earlier species evolving these features through Darwinian mechanisms and so is an inter-species issue. You just didn't grasp that point.
Click to expand...

Ah, I am grasping what he is getting at. It still sounds more like an origins issue than a macro-evolution issue.

"Earlier species" is kinda deceptive, here, since enzymatic folding probably emerged early enough in the development of life, that it effects all species since those earliest of ones.

Although there are differences in which enzymes are present amonst different species (patterns of which match the branching tree of descent, but we don't have to get into that, here); the fundamental folding techniques between them probably to not vary very much.

So, as an inter-species issue, it is still kinda weak.
 
Last edited:
randman said:
Outdated paradigms refers to viewing the universe, specifically elemental particles, as fundamentally physical in nature.
Click to expand...

And that is a real problem, they are physical inature, but guess what energy is physical, it is not idela of immaterial. So what are you sugegsting?
I beleive there was evena thread about this.

QM and physics can not be accurately modeled as information can it?

What do you think EM radiation is? Ideal in nature.

Physical.

ETA:
I forgot you don't get physics either

randman: Quantum information theory

Science cant even be justified by the scientific method
 
Last edited:
To summarise Randman's responses:

***

He has no problem with speciation and microevolution.

***

I don't know precisely, but as far as I know those are not at odds with evolution, to the point of being in total agreement with it.


Why do you keep on saying that evolution does not happen, when you clearly have no problem with it?

I am starting to think that Rantman is playing devil's advocate for creationists and other pseudo-sciences.
 
It's a question of where variation comes from, in part. Evolution predicts that variation is constantly being added and subtracted from the system, in the form of mutations and selection. randman has consistently argued that the proper view is that all variation was already present when life started, or at least very early on, and that speciation and microevolution are the mere loss of information--new information is not possible, or is exceedingly rare.

There's also the question of interpretation. A paleontologist or evolutionary biologist would interpret Punctuated Equilibrium as a relatively minor adjustment to our understanding of evolution (well, that's the concensus on the paleo side, anyway--it's a new tempo, but was overhyped when it first came out). randman views it as proof that 1) there were no transitional forms, 2) all species arose fully-formed, and 3) some intelligent agent was involved. He's never real specific on what that agent is, but he demands that there be some agent.

It's really bizzar. He has some knowledge of a few fields involved in evolution, but views them through such a biased perspective that he refuses to acknowledge the plain truth when it's presented (no personal attack here--there are threads where he was presented overwhelming proof that, say, Heckal's embryonic pictures weren't the standard in developmental biology anymore, and he still refused to admit that we weren't relying on Heckal for embriology anymore). And any new information that DOES get through is viewed entirely through the lense of his skewed paradigm. That's why there's so many communication issues--he's literally not speaking the same language as the rest of us.
 
Why would life forms come "pre-loaded" with partial, parasitical virus genes, in non-coding sections. What possible purpose, other than outright deception, would distinct species share the same snippets of the cellular invaders from the distant past? It leads right back to last-Thursday-ism.

ID is the fig leaf for those who happen to be both devout, (in social affiliation, anyway), and moderately scientifically curious/literate.

The randster is here to generate conflict and argumentation; as a way to avoid accepting the implications of reality, to rage against the margins of our ever growing tapestry of scientific understanding. Using the fuel of righteous fury to numb the pain of facing our modern world.

Or somethin'
 
randman said:
Axe says his work supports ID. Evos say it doesn't. I chalk it up to evos not being willing to admit they were wrong and that is based on a long history of evos denying basic facts and data when they believe it contradicts evo theory such as taking decades to admit the reality of the fossil record not showing the transitions, adherence to the biogenetic law and faked data, refusal to accept experiments showing epigenetics decades ago, etc, etc,....
Click to expand...

The quoted email I gave you was released by IDers/creationists to support their own viewpoint. At least keep up with your own misrepresentations.

And as for your misrepresentation of what creationists have had to say about fossils. It makes me laugh. You (plural you) have banged on about gaps in the fossil record when the fossil record is just an added bonus to support evolution. You have claimed that dinosaurs and humans coexisted when the fossil record clearly shows that they did not. You have claimed that existence of soft tissue in fossils means that radioactive decay rates are incorrect when it doesn't.

No, the ToE does predict forms that are intermediate in morphology at intermediate times. For example it predicts that an intermediate between non-tetrapod and tetrapod fish existed in the late Devonian. So real scientists, not creationists went to look in that period. Guess what they found?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

I've given you another wiki ref, you might be able to understand it.
 
randman said:
For a number of reasons. Try to look at the process without the simplistic thinking of evos. Just because something evolves does not mean it can forever evolve1. Evos are like someone that sees a man walking, and then sees video of a man walking on the moon, and then insists man walked to the moon.

There are clear restraints on observed microevolutionary processes that make it wholly unsuitable as a mechanism for macroevolution.2
Pierre Paul Grasse pointed this out long ago as have many other noted scientists.
Click to expand...

I am not a biologist, so my understanding is limited, so please clarify some of these points.

1. Why not. My understanding is that evolution is driven by mutation, and focused by natural selection. since mutation is an ongoing process, why would evolution not be?

2. What are those constraints, why are they unsuitable for macro-evolution, but allow micro-evolution. As I stated, I am not a biologist, so I don't want to read a technical paper that I won't understand. Since you already understand this, please explain in a way that I, as a layperson can grasp.
 
randman said:
Wowbagger, this comment of your's discredits you and shows you haven't the slightest idea of what Axe's paper actually is.



I suggest you reread his work. It's no use discussing it with you if you won't take the time to understand it.
Click to expand...

And then when someone does read it you will dismiss them any how,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom