Evolution a hoax?

[Wowbagger]

I can probably name a LOT of scandals and hoaxes and lies spread by the Creationists, that would make Haeckel's blunders seem trite. But, I'm not going to bother. It is the ULTIMATE success, that matters here.

Both Evolution and Creationism have had a history of scandals and hoaxes within them.

But, one of them was able to rise out of the muck, to actually produce workable ideas. The other has not.

 

[Acleron]

It's hard to move on to newer stuff when you guys won't even admit what evos do in peer-reviewed lit. Consider this comment for example:

Quote:
Whether macrovolution is reducible to microevolution is one of the persistent debates in evolutionary biology.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...6.00603.x/full

As usual, Randman quote mines quite laughably.

Randman, you think this is a biologist specialising in evolution?

Oh dear, another fail.

He is a professor of philosophy in a department of philosophy. He has an interest in evolution but a practicising biologist in evolution he certainly ain't.

 

[A'isha]

Like I said, you still failed to provide any paper that addresses the issue posed. Unfortunately, you cannot seem to grasp the point or are simply unwilling to do so.

All the papers that I drew that information were linked to in that March post. If you refuse to read them, that's not my problem.

But just as a clue for you. Rates related to mutation are only half the question posed, and if you go back and read you will note I already stated evos have theories and papers related to rates of mutation, including which ones they believe would be beneficial or neutral.

Which is why I also gave you papers relating to gene loss in addition to gene increase via mutation. You know, like you asked for.

So let me ask you something. Why then do I continue to tell you that the papers do not address the question posed?

Probably because, as you've done with so many other things, if you were to realize that you're utterly mistaken about evolutionary theory and what evolutionary scientists actually say, you'd have no argument at all.

Could it be that I have not simply asked you for rates of mutation but for something else? a comparison of that and something else?

Yes. Gene loss rate. Which I gave you. Along with studies for gene increase rate, so you could finally stop with this foolish idea that organisms can only lose genes from their genomes, and can't increase genome size via mutations. Which is the core of your laughable "criticism" of evolutionary theory.

Though if you want to move the goalposts and insist on a comparison of gene loss vs. gene gain in a single study, how about this? Or this? Or this?

I am putting this in a question in the hopes that perhaps you can get it then. I have stated and restated ad nauseum the comparison that has not been done, that should be done, but you do not seem to get it.

Where's that exploding irony meter gif when you need it?

Oh, and nice job recycling Haeckel yet again. If you're simply going to repeat pretty much everything you posted back in March, why did you even bother coming back? What's next, dragging out the A. millepora study again?

 

[Dancing David]

perpetual, real science is about nitpicking the facts and data whether you want to accept that or not.

So the thousands of transitional forms in sea shells are all just our imagination?

Really, okay.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the thousands of transitional forms in sea shells are all just our imagination?

Really, okay.

Them's just seashells and don't really count

Too bad there are currently only about 20 prominent hominid fossils. Of course that article is a few years old and so there could be more by now.

 

[Wowbagger]

Too bad there are currently only about 20 prominent hominid fossils. Of course that article is a few years old and so there could be more by now.

Those don't count, either. They are only micro-evolutions.

 

[catsmate]

What's an evo?

1. a now defunct family of Compaq personal computers
2. a noise made by IDiots, similar to a bird call, indicating their affiliation with that group

 

[catsmate]

Got anything besides all this blather?

Lies, distortions, quote mining, evasions, the usual IDiocy.

 

[catsmate]

Pierre Paul Grasse pointed this out long ago as have many other noted scientists.

No he didn't. That was lie when you posted it four months ago and reality hasn't changed to conform itself to your beliefs in the intervening time.

 

[catsmate]

Grasse was brought up by Randman in this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7062778&postcount=850

Why bother, Randman? Who are you trying to impress?

I think he actually believes that we've forgotten the last round. Or else he's just blathering to quiet his internal doubts about his beliefs.

 

[Acleron]

...

But maybe ignoring empirical evidence is indeed a major factor in whether one believes in evolution or not? Maybe the need to believe in a common source trumps everything else?

Another classic mistake in considering science. It is creationist/IDers that have a need to believe. Scientists become convinced by the facts.

 

[Complexity]

wowabgger, how do you explain people that once accepted evo theory and now don't.

I tend not to believe them when they say that.

There is a lot of Lying for Jesus.

 

[Wowbagger]

I tend not to believe them when they say that.

There is a lot of Lying for Jesus.

Or maybe their standards of evidence changed. In this case, for the worse. But, perhaps they don't realize that, when it happens.

 

[randman]

No he didn't. That was lie when you posted it four months ago and reality hasn't changed to conform itself to your beliefs in the intervening time.

Since you guys don't want to debate ideas and pretend data showing you are wrong does not exist, it may be fruitless to continue. I'll just say you are 100% wrong on Pierre Grasse. He referred to your theory as "a myth" and he was entirely correct on that.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

There's one thing I'd still really like to hear:

Instant Crickets

 

[Wowbagger]

I'll just say you are 100% wrong on Pierre Grasse. He referred to your theory as "a myth" and he was entirely correct on that.

Well, it is easy for you to say that: I don't know what your occupation is, but as long as you are not responsible for saving endangered species, or conducting innovative medical research, etc; then you don't have to care about the Theory of Evolution. You can afford to accept whatever "theories" feel right, in your own mind.

However, those folks who DO have the real responsability of developing innovative solutions to real biological problems will continue to use theories that yield reliable results for themselves.

Ever heard the expression "whatever floats your boat"? Evolution is "floating the boat" of scientists. Why bother trying to debate that? What do you have against productive paradigms?

If you think "NeoDarwinism" is a hiderance to science, you need to show how a Creationist-based theory can do better! For example, explain to us how Intelligent Design could help improve the conservation of the Kakapo.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by randman
...
That's what empirical data shows.

It would be helpful since this is a science forum if you stuck with empirical data. ...

What an interesting concept! So, tell us about all that empirical data for your deities.

Still waiting...

 

[Perpetual Student]

perpetual, real science is about nitpicking the facts and data whether you want to accept that or not.

That would be a reasonable sentiment -- if you were representing a real science. Since your deities do not have a single shred of scientific support, your statement would be delusional at best but more likely it is simply hypocritical and dishonest.

 

[randman]

Well, it is easy for you to say that: I don't know what your occupation is, but as long as you are not responsible for saving endangered species, or conducting innovative medical research, etc; then you don't have to care about the Theory of Evolution. You can afford to accept whatever "theories" feel right, in your own mind.

However, those folks who DO have the real responsability of developing innovative solutions to real biological problems will continue to use theories that yield reliable results for themselves.

Ever heard the expression "whatever floats your boat"? Evolution is "floating the boat" of scientists. Why bother trying to debate that? What do you have against productive paradigms?

If you think "NeoDarwinism" is a hiderance to science, you need to show how a Creationist-based theory can do better! For example, explain to us how Intelligent Design could help improve the conservation of the Kakapo.

Actually, I don't have to show squat about creationism to show NeoDarwinism is wrong, and neither did Grasse have to in order to call your theory a myth.

I am not a YEC, at least not yet, but the more I read and learn of their research, the more I lean that way. The problem is I don't think young earth creationism accounts for everything. It definitely contributes to science however. And don't bother asking....I've shown numerous times their contributions and you guys just pretend I haven't and they don't exist. Their research on sedimentation alone devastates the evo paradigm. It will be interesting to see where the evidence leads.

 

[Wowbagger]

Actually, I don't have to show squat about creationism to show NeoDarwinism is wrong, and neither did Grasse have to in order to call your theory a myth.

Correction: You can't show us anything. Creationism has no powers here.

The problem is I don't think young earth creationism accounts for everything.

What does Old Earth creationism account for, that Young Earth can not?

What does any form of creationism account for, that Evolution, and other natural processes can not?

It definitely contributes to science however.

The example you gave, from Dr. Axe, contributes nothing significant. It does not even invoke a Designer.

Do you understand why most scientists are going to seek something more reliable than that?

Their research on sedimentation alone devastates the evo paradigm.

How does their research on sedimentation address the history of life found through coal deposits?

For example: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coalprints.html

It will be interesting to see where the evidence leads.

I predict Creationism will do nothing, and go nowhere. You like it because it feels good in your mind, and that's fine.

I stick to evolution, because it gives us answers that don't require us to resort to non-materialistic ideas. I don't think I can count on non-materiality when I would need it the most.