Each and every one of those "whys" is a petulant whine rather than defensible as a potential reason. Everyone of them avoids even the pretense of introspection and instead points fingers and lays blame at others. At least one of them is pure projection. The final one is patently absurd. All of them combined put as fine a point as possible on your incapacity to reason through evidence to supportable conclusions. And of course... you were unable to even pretend to consider the reason that all your opponents on this forum would have listed first without hesitation: Your language and behavior is offensive. What a shock. Forums do not see as virtues things are actually not virtues. Who might have imagined such a circumstance? Certainly it seems not you. But it is ultimately not so much your opponents on this forum that you appear to find subtly insulting, but the reality that the entire universe is a subtle insult to your world view. There is not merely "bias" in nature, there is unrefined and unremitting prejudice there. Everything has already been judged, every issue already settled, every classification between truth and fiction already assigned. The objective reality of the universe that exists independently of our preferences, our awareness or even our existence is already complete and immutable. And it is an insult to what you would prefer to believe was true. It is objective reality that subtly insults you, not the people on this forum or in this thread.
I glossed over this in the earlier post. But i would like to point our several things. I numbered your statements for clarity. 1. The first sentence is merely an assertion. Claiming 'incontrovertible & obvious' evidence is not enough. You actually have to produce the evidence. 2. This is another assertion, or a non sequitur leap of 'since a is true, then b', when the correlation between a & b have not been made. Millions of horizontal genetic changes do not make a single vertical change in complexity. 3. This is a dismissal.. an attempt to marginalize by making a general smear about the intelligence or rationality of the opposing debater, with NO relation to the subject. Have you proven that my critique of this theory is an 'irrational person denying it for religious reasons?' No. This is only a smear, used to dismiss & demean. This may be your opinion, but it is not something you have demonstrated with evidence. It is an attempt to stir up emotional responses & hysteria, rather than engage in logical, topical discussion. 4. Non sequitur. Of course it can be a scientific discussion. Do life forms change in complexity over time, or do they not? What do we observe? What do we test? What can we conclude by the scientific method? The very claim that is made by the proponents is that it IS a proven scientific fact. Are you now claiming it is only a religious matter, that cannot be examined by the scientific method?
Let's see... needling.. check. Implied insults... check. Innuendo... check. You are doing great! You really know how to work the system! topical discussion evidence... none. All you have here are assertions, mostly about me! Very bizarre. I know you're just trying to bait me into a hysterical exchange, but i'm going to stick with logic, here. If you want to discuss the issue with scientific evidence, i'll go along. But i'm going to ignore the ad hominems, insults, & demeaning tone... for now.
Did you miss me? you mentioned 'life'. That's the main reason to even comprehend an evolution. to nature, itself. Meaning, you cant divide nature and life. sure it is. Each moment is an evolution from the previous. That FACT is what yu need to repeat to yourself, if you are trying to 'evolve' with the understanding. That is perhaps why you are having a tough time learning; talking versus evolving with the moment make the point and ill put it back, if its wrong (re-butt) sounds like a personal problem there is a dismal path nah...... the children will hate you for being 'tupid. ie... knowledge evolves with or without the moron. do you mean, evolve? Any 'growth' is an evolution. Ahhhh dahhhh. Which is opposite of your assertion. Funny aint it? you're here, learning, right now. You're here posting with me based on 'skepticism, scientific scrutiny & the scientific method, in general'..................... believe it or not! are you trying to get me to evolve? At which moment?
You missed a few: Accurate labels... check. Uncomfortable truths... check. Usfan taking responsibility for his own behavior... nope. Still not even close.
funny. Observed??? Measured????? What is gravity, itself? 'reasons'?????? fricken hilarious. Gravity is something YOU could not observe or measure, without knowing what it is. Then, an evolution is as easy as combining words. For example: ghonapsyphilherpalaids. and you dont have a clue, either way. evolution has nothing to do with an 'increased complexity'. You could tap the surface of a pond and that wave is now conveying across a medium; 'increased complexity'. You have your wires twisted on this subject matter. then perhaps stop posting This is not that complicated. Logic & science are very simple. You make the theory, test it, & make the conclusions. Facts & evidence. ie..... you are being dismissed procreation does that exact very thing sure it can You just want an evolution to fit what you want it to, versus remaining humble to evolve (learn) It is why you're being dismissed! If you quit asserting the stupid claims, you wont get the 'ass u me' joke.
To bring the thread back to topic, i'll expound on a point made earlier: IF A, then B. This is a central argument, here. 'A' is horizontal variability in genetic types. 'B' is vertical changes in complexity. 'A' can be observed, tested, repeated, & is the basis for breeding, & many life sciences. It is a valid scientific truth. But 'B' cannot be extrapolated from 'A'. It is a false correlation. You must either PROVE the correlation, with testing & observation, or make an new theory. 'A' does not prove 'B'. They are 2 different phenomenon, that cannot be correlated, except by assertion. So to provide evidence for the hypothesis in this thread, there must either be clear correlation, or direct evidence that living things increase in complexity, that is, make vertical changes in their genetic structure. Off topic insults & flame baiting are noted, and ignored.. for now.
<moving slowly away>.. ok.. fine. Whatever you say, B. I'm still trying to decide if i 'missed you' or not..
No. This is an absurd creationist straw man, based entirely on some combination of willful and accidental ignorance. No scientist is obligated to defend it. Genetic variability is neither horizontal nor vertical. It is an extensive property without spatial dimensions.
correct. depends what you measure and how you set up the graph lot's of spatial dimenstions of evolutionary tracks and progressions. ie.... life itself
what is 'moving slowly away'? That 'wave' is entangling more mass as it propagates over time/space. Yes? No? at least you know who will give you a straight answer
This is a blanket assertion, & does not recognize the scientific question at hand. You are using philosophical arguments to prop up a scientific issue. Provide the science for this assertion, or i will merely dismiss it. Bluff & bullying are not scientific evidence. There IS evidence for variability. There is NONE for increased complexity. You are glossing over a significant problem in the theory. Merely asserting that A=B does not make it true. Prove it.
1. Blanket assertions are valid when they are true. This is especially true when they are themselves responses to blanket assertions that have no evidence in their support. 2. You have posed no scientific question. You have posed a straw man. Again, scientists are under no obligation to defend the straw men set up by their rhetorical opponents. I am doing no such thing. It is an empirical fact that genetic variation is neither vertical nor horizontal. It is an extensive property and any assignation of a "direction" is entirely arbitrary.. Please... do not make me laugh while I am drinking coffee near the keyboard. What you do or do not dismiss is entirely uninteresting to me. This has been repeatedly demonstrated to be objectively false. Every human being is born with between 100 and 200 original point mutations that were not present in either parent. That alone is by definition an increase in quantity and complexity. You have also been pointed to the example of gene duplications and your silence in response remains deafening. I agree that "bluff and bullying" are not scientific evidence. Neither is inexplicable ignorance. I am doing no such thing. I am simply dismissing your straw man as unworthy of counter argument. In this instance there is no A and B. There is only A. If you insist there is a distinction worthy of a B, then the obligation for proof is entirely yours.
You have already said you are not willing to read links. Otherwise, I could provide enough links to choke this server. What I produced was known as a statement of fact. It is trivially true. Read a book. As I said earlier, this is like telling an astronomer that there's no such thing as space, that stars are mere assertions, and that telescopes don't exist. Any rational astronomer would recognize the futility of discussion, since the objections are so stupid. No, I'm saying scientists, using the scientific method, have answered these questions in such comprehensive, exhaustive, consiliant detail that there is no rational debate. Again, it's like you are denying that the moon exists, demanding scientific proof otherwise, and refusing to credit any of it. WHETHER life forms change over time is not part of a scientific discussion. What causes them to change over time IS a scientific discussion, which has been going on with great vitality and enormously detailed examination for over 150 years. For you to suggest that the evidence all of these people have been generating and examining doesn't exist in the first place, is beyond assinine. Again, read a book. I can't read a book for you.
And that is actually sad. I have always had an interest in the history of science. I have always been interested in how they acquired the knowledge rather than the knowledge itself. I reference this point because many of the questions the OP raises are exactly the questions that have been raised in the past as a starting point to the gaining of knowledge. The original questions asked by Darwin and others had no specific reference to evolution. They were trying to understand why various creatures live where they do, but more importantly where they don't. Darwin, Wallace and others were in no way pre-disposed to the theory that evolved out of their findings.
Darwin, no dummy, was quite intensely aware that his proposed model would run afoul of religious doctrine. He constructed his theory of natural selection (he called it "descent with modification") decades before he published, and spent those decades compiling as many evidences as he could find or generate on his own. And he only published it when he did because otherwise Wallace was prepared to publish essentially the same explanation. And Darwin was right, it immediately aroused the righteous anger of the religious literalists, and continues to do so today. You may be interested in this wonderful essay: http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_4.html In which Dawkins concludes: Kurt Wise, unusual among evolution opponents, does not deny the evidence. He knows it, understands it, and struggles with it because he feels he has no choice but to regard reality as profoundly, perversely misleading. It simply does not line up with the superstitions of stone-age goat herders, and the more scientists learn, the more it disagrees with the interpretations Wise places on what he assumes is the word of what he assumes is his god. And against that, as Dawkins says, no evidence can possibly ever make any difference.
Sure but when Darwin began his voyage on the Beagle and began to ponder the nature of species, he did not have the theory in his head, and looking for proof. As he assembled his data he began to form a hypothesis. His biggest stumbling blocks was mechanism, and thats the thing that held him back so much. Wallace on the other hand was initially more intuitive. As a commercial collector he recognized the importance of geography. In that geography he began to see the patterns, and from these patterns he arrived at much the same point Darwin did
well, i was waiting for any scientific arguments & evidence, rather than the needling that goes with this territory. Shirley, you don't expect me to reply to every one liner & crack you guys make, do you? But i figure this thread has reached it's limit, & will probably only be good for more ad hominems, maybe some strawmen, & a few causation/correlation fallacies.. but we'll see.
And yet again..... Allopolyploid hybridization endosymbiosis interspecific hybridization At least three times now, these examples of increased complexity and speciation have been put before you. No needling, no ad-hominems, no strawmen. Just evidence and facts.
Longest post ever... That being said, if a species is geographically widespread, a genetic mutation may arise in a single colony without instantly transferring to every colony. Right? So much for the thesis.
Frankly, our expectation at this point is that you will actually respond to nothing substantive and instead blithely repeat assertions long demonstrated to be false. You are simply not up to the task of defending ID. Most of the evolutionists on this thread understand it far better than you do. This thread has certainly reached your limit. Except of course for your "irony limit" which appears to be largely non-existent.
