Skepticism and Evolution

[drkitten]

This wasn't a troll thread.

It was an post designed to elicit a reaction instead of present information. That is by definition a troll thread.

Goodness me -- you posted dishonestly and you were accused of dishonesty. What a surprise.

 

[Shalamar]

Plumjam, If you feel that Evolution is made up, a lie, imaginary, etc etc..

Then you must have an alternate Scientific Theory counter to that of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. You must have all the evidence, and real-world examples to explain the vast diversity of life that we see today.

I can't wait to see it.

 

[joobz]

In real life (not your imagination) ...

Is that the same "real life" that provides the evidentiary support for the theory of evolution?

Do you have a counter hypothesis that would explain the anamolies in human chromosome 2 which make it appear as though it was a fusion of two seperate ape chromosomes?
Why does this chromosome has an additional centromere and telemores in the middle of the chromosome?
why does chromosome 2 look like a fusion to chromosome 12 and chromosome 13?
Why can we not find similar evidence when comparing human chromosomes with those of Dogs, cats, plants?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)


http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/PP.Chrom.Fus3.ppt

 

[plumjam]

Obviously, those are examples of micro-addition
I have never seen an example of a 5 becoming 100 or 2324 becoming a 654123245. It is clear that macro-addition is completely impossible and mathematicians are simply deluding themselves with their own dogmatic religion.

As such, intelligent counting is a far more logical explanation. The amazing order the numbers have is only possible by design, and that design was given to us by the great prime numerator.

The point was being made in relation to the supposed movement from dead mindless slime to life.
The application of simple imaginary addition to this problem is enormously dumb.
A process of simple mathematical addition is non-reversible. The chance accretion of aggregations of molecules is not. It is reversible, and that makes the addition analogy entirely false, and misleading to any onlookers.
If you have a box full of jigsaw pieces it will only be possible to assemble the jigsaw via chance (shaking the box) if the interlocking of the correct pieces is irreversible. If (as in real life) the interlocking of the pieces is reversible you're unlikely to get past a few correct pieces interlocking before they fall out of place again.

 

[paximperium]

The point was being made in relation to the supposed movement from dead mindless slime to life.
The application of simple imaginary addition to this problem is enormously dumb.
A process of simple mathematical addition is non-reversible. The chance accretion of aggregations of molecules is not. It is reversible, and that makes the addition analogy entirely false, and misleading to any onlookers.
If you have a box full of jigsaw pieces it will only be possible to assemble the jigsaw via chance (shaking the box) if the interlocking of the correct pieces is irreversible. If (as in real life) the interlocking of the pieces is reversible you're unlikely to get past a few correct pieces interlocking before they fall out of place again.

Ooooh more additions to the list:
Oh, Plummy:
we're still waiting.
The Plumjam Purposefylly Unanswered Question List
1)Question from Joobz: "if you wish to claim that macroevolution is impossible and therefore TOE is impossible, we MUST define what it means to be macroevolution. Otherwise, all you are doing is creating an illusion and using that illusion to disprove evolution."
2)Question from MattusMaximus: "That is, you have made numerous insinuations that there is a vast, atheistic conspiracy to purge academia of theists who do not cater to what you call "Darwinist dogma". Please provide solid evidence of this claim - naming one specific case will do..."
3)Define the limits of these variations and the mechanism that prevents these variations from becoming larger over time. Still waiting for this one
4)Please present a valid alternative to Evolution that is testable and falsifiable.
5)Questions from Joobz: "what is macro-evolution? Is it similar to blahblahpoopydoop?"
6)In what way does the fossil record contradict evolution? (please, please, please use your prior Creationist list of garbage that we showed to be dishonest misquoted Creationist propaganda)
7)Define "living forms".
8)Please clearly provide evidence that any changes due to evolution is irreversible.

 

[joobz]

The point was being made in relation to the supposed movement from dead mindless slime to life.
The application of simple imaginary addition to this problem is enormously dumb.
A process of simple mathematical addition is non-reversible. The chance accretion of aggregations of molecules is not. It is reversible, and that makes the addition analogy entirely false, and misleading to any onlookers.

You are ignoring the fact that evolution only occurs when we have a selection mechanism occuring.

By your analogy, random diffusion could never result in pressure differential, but we see that occur all the time when we have a semi-permeable membrane.
(look up osmotic pressure).

If you have a box full of jigsaw pieces it will only be possible to assemble the jigsaw via chance (shaking the box) if the interlocking of the correct pieces is irreversible. If (as in real life) the interlocking of the pieces is reversible you're unlikely to get past a few correct pieces interlocking before they fall out of place again.

not true, if the present selection mechanism that keeps the initial peices in place. (which is exactly how evolution works).

Again, your argument is entirely from ignorance.

 

[plumjam]

Plumjam, If you feel that Evolution is made up, a lie, imaginary, etc etc..

Then you must have an alternate Scientific Theory counter to that of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. You must have all the evidence, and real-world examples to explain the vast diversity of life that we see today.

I can't wait to see it.

If the police come to your house to arrest your sister on suspicion of murdering someone, at a time when she was with you and your friends, do you have to be able to tell the police who actually committed the murder before you're allowed to tell them that she has an alibi which will free her from suspicion?

That's the kind of strange logic you're using there.

 

[Shalamar]

The point was being made in relation to the supposed movement from dead mindless slime to life.

'Dead Mindless Slime' seems to imply the precursor chemicals to life. This is an entirely seperate branch of science from Evolution called Abiogenesis. Evolution doesn't care where life come from. It makes the assumption that life already exists.

And as far as I am aware, the scientific answer to 'where did life come from?' is 'We're not really sure, but we have some really good ideas. We'll let you know when we find something.'

 

[paximperium]

If the police come to your house to arrest your sister on suspicion of murdering someone, at a time when she was with you and your friends, do you have to be able to tell the police who actually committed the murder before you're allowed to tell them that she has an alibi which will free her from suspicion?

That's the kind of strange logic you're using there.

So to summarize,
Plumjam: "No and bladdypoopoo..."

 

[joobz]

If the police come to your house to arrest your sister on suspicion of murdering someone, at a time when she was with you and your friends, do you have to be able to tell the police who actually committed the murder before you're allowed to tell them that she has an alibi which will free her from suspicion?

That's the kind of strange logic you're using there.

The better analogy would be.
I find a person dead, the autopsy shows that it was natural causes. You believing that it was murder, must come up with a theory that fits the evidence and which makes the natural cause explanation false.

 

[plumjam]

You are ignoring the fact that evolution only occurs when we have a selection mechanism occuring.

By your analogy, random diffusion could never result in pressure differential, but we see that occur all the time when we have a semi-permeable membrane.
(look up osmotic pressure).

not true, if the present selection mechanism that keeps the initial peices in place. (which is exactly how evolution works).

Again, your argument is entirely from ignorance.

You need to read back.
Gord ignored the content of the full reply I gave him. He then made a comment about getting from slime to plumjam. Seeing as he had taken this tack I decided to ask him a question, for a change. The question being how he would get from dead mindless slime to life.

 

[plumjam]

The better analogy would be.
I find a person dead, the autopsy shows that it was natural causes. You believing that it was murder, must come up with a theory that fits the evidence and which makes the natural cause explanation false.

Except that the autopsy doesn't show that.

 

[D'rok]

If the police come to your house to arrest your sister on suspicion of murdering someone, at a time when she was with you and your friends, do you have to be able to tell the police who actually committed the murder before you're allowed to tell them that she has an alibi which will free her from suspicion?

That's the kind of strange logic you're using there.

What if the police came to your house to arrest your sister on suspicion of murdering someone and showed you her fingerprints on the murder weapon; her DNA at the crime scene; the vitctim's DNA from skin cells under her fingernails; her explicit notes on how she planned to do it; and her dairy entry "today is the day I kill him" on the day of the crime, but you still insisted she was innocent because you hadn't witnessed it?

We'd probably think you were a very silly person.

 

[rocketdodger]

If (as in real life) the interlocking of the pieces is reversible you're unlikely to get past a few correct pieces interlocking before they fall out of place again.

Is this the explanation for why your brain seems to have fallen out of your head?

Seriously.

Do you really know so little about the "proposed" theory of evolution that you think the "pieces" just "fall out of place?"

 

[joobz]

Except that the autopsy doesn't show that.

Oh but it does.

Is that the same "real life" that provides the evidentiary support for the theory of evolution?

Do you have a counter hypothesis that would explain the anamolies in human chromosome 2 which make it appear as though it was a fusion of two seperate ape chromosomes?
Why does this chromosome has an additional centromere and telemores in the middle of the chromosome?
why does chromosome 2 look like a fusion to chromosome 12 and chromosome 13?
Why can we not find similar evidence when comparing human chromosomes with those of Dogs, cats, plants?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)


http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/PP.Chrom.Fus3.ppt

How did your supposed murder make it seem like it was a long slow death by natural causes?

 

[Shalamar]

If the police come to your house to arrest your sister on suspicion of murdering someone, at a time when she was with you and your friends, do you have to be able to tell the police who actually committed the murder before you're allowed to tell them that she has an alibi which will free her from suspicion?

That's the kind of strange logic you're using there.

How strange. Not a valid analogy for what you argue.

In fact, that is exactly what the creationists argue:

Creationist: Your sister killed that man!
Scientist: No.. She didn't. Here is the evidence on how she could not have done it.
Creationist: All Lies! I refuse to believe it!
Scientist :The evidence states, to the best of our knowledge, that she was on the opposite side of town, at work, and we have witnesses that place at her place of employment the entire time.
Creationist: I KNOW she did it! Don't bother me with mere facts!

So, in essence, you are arguing that you do not trust the evidence in favour of the Theory of Evolution by means of Natural Selection, merely because you don't believe it.

Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation on how evolution occurs. It may not be perfect, but it has been built using multiple sources of evidence, and as new information comes to light, it appears to solidify the existing Theory. If you have a different Scientific Theory, then by all means, present your evidence. Said evidence will be held to the same standard that the evidence for the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection will be held to. If the evidence is really compelling, and the work solid, there could even be a nobel prize for science in it!

 

[paximperium]

Oh plummy don't forget, your list is getting bigger:
we're still waiting.
The Plumjam Purposefylly Unanswered Question List
1)Question from Joobz: "if you wish to claim that macroevolution is impossible and therefore TOE is impossible, we MUST define what it means to be macroevolution. Otherwise, all you are doing is creating an illusion and using that illusion to disprove evolution."
2)Question from MattusMaximus: "That is, you have made numerous insinuations that there is a vast, atheistic conspiracy to purge academia of theists who do not cater to what you call "Darwinist dogma". Please provide solid evidence of this claim - naming one specific case will do..."
3)Define the limits of these variations and the mechanism that prevents these variations from becoming larger over time. Still waiting for this one
4)Please present a valid alternative to Evolution that is testable and falsifiable.
5)Questions from Joobz: "what is macro-evolution? Is it similar to blahblahpoopydoop?"
6)In what way does the fossil record contradict evolution? (please, please, please use your prior Creationist list of garbage that we showed to be dishonest misquoted Creationist propaganda)
7)Define "living forms".
8)Please clearly provide evidence that any changes due to evolution is irreversible.

 

[paximperium]

Except that the autopsy doesn't show that.

So what does the autopsy show?

4)Please present a valid alternative to Evolution that is testable and falsifiable.

 

[Civilized Worm]

Hey Plumjam! Got that evidence for the discrimination in academia against theists ("the purge") by the atheistic "Darwinist dogmatists" yet? Remember, naming just one single case will do.

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

He won't answer you, he claims that you are "angry" "unpleasant" and "nuts". Ironically when I asked him to provide examples of such behaviour he ignored me.

 

[Mobyseven]

If I posted I was skeptical about electricity I doubt I'd be called a creationist.

No, that's right. Because being skeptical of electricity has nothing whatsoever to do with creationism. If you had posted you were skeptical about electricity, you'd probably just get called a douchebad, because to the best of my knowledge there isn't an organised group of people who oppose the teaching of electromagnetic theory in schools on the grounds that the holy book of an ancient group of shepards tells them to.

You know, unlike evolution.