Really? Seriously? You really think I'll bite? ..post a rebuttal to have a flood of ad hom and mocking thrown at me? My points ignored for some lame anti-science narrative? You must think I'm dumber than i look...
The question of origins is fairly easy, as some say "god did it", but have no evidence and science says they are looking for evidence, but don't have an answer yet. I think that about covers it, doesn't it? However, science DOES have evidence concerning evolution. Did you skim my cite? I'm not asking that you thoroughly read it. I just want it known that there exists a whole branch of biology that works on what's going on inside cells, including how change occurs.
I really don't know why you are here if it doesn't include having a point of view and making a case for that. Again, I just posted that to avert the frequently stated argument that there is no evidence for speciation.
Uh...it is literally the foundation of every single argument you make regarding this topic. You freely and easy assume it as your first premises, so people are correct and rational to undermine that nonsense.
Pot. Kettle. Black. You chastise me for my phrasing, which was evenly applied, yet you frame your dichotomy with prejudicial language... If 'Some say..' xxx, why does 'Science!' say xxx? Is not your 'Science!' just 'some' of another opinion, if they are still looking for evidence but haven't found it yet? Is there an 'Objective Reality', concerning origins? Are there different beliefs ABOUT this objective reality? Why are theists/supernaturalists opinions all unscientific & superstitious, while your atheists/naturalists opinions are, 'Science!', when there is no evidence for either, as you noted?
Because they are not supported by a shred of evidence, and they often contradict all the evidence. That was kind of a softball question.
And, of course, your link.. err ..cite.. provides no evidence for universal common descent.. polyploidy in plants, or certain other organisms is not a mechanism for universal common descent. Pathetically, i can read and understand most of these abstracts, and sift through the verbiage to find the point, if any, that is being made. This is NOT claiming to be a mechanism for evolution.. it is too rare, and only works in certain haplogroups. It is not a universal mechanism for change. ..but you are right.. if i can't take the heat, i should get out of the kitchen. I already hear the hecklers approaching, as they unite in their cause of shouting down any dissenting opinion to the tenets of atheistic naturalism. But i have been battling these irrational, fallacious hordes for decades, and am a bit bored with it. It isn't so much that my dainty disposition is hurt, by the constant barrage of ridicule and ad hominem, it is more i am bored by the childish and anti-knowledge tactics, and it grieves me to see something i have cherished and revered my whole life... Science.. become a tool for propaganda for indoctrinating religious beliefs.
..especially if you parse it, to choose your own meaning and ignore the context! Good 'Gotcha!' You'll be good at this!
I called you on "nuthindidit" because that's not the same as not having an answer and it's also not the same as knowing of natural processes that are sufficient. By science I mean the process of experimental science - which includes hypothesis testing, verification by independent work and repetition, review by experts, etc. It's based on the assumption that mankind can meaningfully observe our universe. I provided a cite that includes evidence of specific mechanisms of evolution that are sufficient for speciation.
Mamasaid has a good point. I left off evidence as one of the distinguishing features of scientific method.
I didn't give you a cite that defends common descent directly. As I pointed out, I gave you a site that studies a family of methods of speciation as evidence that natural methods do exist. So far, you've shown nothing, so I don't know why you show up here and do no more than indicate that you're running on empty. If you've got something, show it! Beyond that, I'd point out that it is YOU who depends on ad hom.
It does neither. I have rebutted the claim that polyploidy is some kind of, 'proof of speciation!' before. It is not. It is only a genetic haplotype. There are no transitions to a different phylogenetic structure, and there is only variation WITHIN the haplogroup, nothing that indicates evolution. It is mere horizontal variation, which the evolutionists falsely equivocate into universal descent. If you would study polyploidy, you would know this, instead of trying to bluff with techno babble filled studies that do not say what you seem to think. False accusations will not endear me to you, or encourage me to engage you in scientific debate. I provide more science, facts, and reasoning than all the posters combined, in these evolution threads. I also know that pointing out ad hom, is not ad hom. Just like pointing out unscientific assertions is not an unscientific assertion. But i have grown weary of battling the phony narratives, which the hordes of evolutionists constantly promote. The antifa tactics and religious zeal that the evolutionists have in attacking any contrary views are very effective, in censoring and shouting down any blasphemy toward their sacred beliefs. These are not scientifically minded people.. they are propagandists.
Regarding polyploidy: It is NOT a mechanism. It is an observed condition of CERTAIN organisms. It does not correlate to all living things, nor is it present in all living things. Just because goldfish or ferns have this capacity (where they only produce more goldfish & ferns) does not prove increasing complexity, or leaps to added chromosome pairs or other such fantasies of the ToE. You cannot extrapolate polyploidy to everything, & imply it as a mechanism, when it is not. it is merely a property of SOME types of organisms, & it does not universally apply to all living things. Therefore, it does not apply. It is not a mechanism. it is not the savior of evolution. It cannot add new genes or chromosomes, but is only a condition of certain organisms that are not binary chromosome ordered. it is a false equivalency to try to apply polyploidy as the engine of evolution. It does not even 'evolve' goldfish or ferns. They merely vary within their genetic parameters, which includes more than the usual pairs of chromosomes. You cannot prove polyploidy as a mechanism of increasing complexity. That is just a belief, & has no scientific corroboration. And btw, polyploidy does not 'add' chromosomes. It merely has copies of the original, with the usual variations from the parent stock. These are not 'new' chromosomes, but mere copies that lurk in the background. This phenomena is deadly to animals, who are much more complex, with beating hearts, eyes, brains, & other bodily functions. They have observed polyploidy genes in mice, under strict laboratory conditions, & under forced diabetic glucose culture mediums. But this is not a mechanism, & it has no power to do as some seem to think it does. It is merely copies of the usual chromosome pairs, found in certain organisms.
And, as usual, MY points are ignored, in favor of the Narrative. I'll try again: Is there.. or do you believe there is.. an Objective Reality concerning origins and the nature of the universe? Is there any evidence for this opinion that you have, about this Objective Reality? Is introspective examination of one's basis for beliefs too troubling? ..easier to affirm your beliefs by bashing and ridiculing others?
You are dodging. You're saying you don't have any proof of an event and don't know how it happened while being dead certain of how it didn't happen and since atheists are always demanding proof, then proof will be demanded of you. Save your evidence. Evidence is not proof and you don't have any evidence anyway. What you have is theory and conjecture. Science cannot prove the Big Bang or abiogenesis. So both sides make claims they can't prove.
Oh yes, poor, poor you. If only you had a shred of evidence or logic in your arsenal, so that they could not bully you so!! *Audible eyeroll
I posted one mechanism to demonstrate that science has made progress on precise mechanisms and that such mechanisms do exist. Antifa??? You do know that this topic is biology, right? All you've shown is ad hom. But, at least you're full of that! There are probably places that will serve you well.
Audible eyeroll? ..must be those state issued mechanical eyes, they issue to progresso bots... They automatically close, too, if anything contrary to the official, approved information comes into view... You only can see what they want you to see.. But keep rolling those eyes! The sound is very soothing... I've posted a few scientific analyses and rebuttals.. just on this thread, and hundreds more over the years, here. So your false accusation has no basis.
No humans have an answer here. There isn't an answer from science on how it happened. It's a hard topic, as we're talking about the beginning of space-time and science demands evidence before making claims. The various religions have their various versions, but they boil down to "god did it" - which is not an answer to "how" it happened, either.
There IS significant evidence that it happened - that is, that our universe came from a singularity. I'm interpreting the "how" question to mean something more than that. Science doesn't have evidence of what caused the singularity, of any possible environment that included the singularity, etc. Theoretical physicists have some interesting ideas, but that is outside of experimental science. Those ideas remain untested.
You are correct, it isn't. All I was saying is that according to science, it is a possibility that God exists.
