Flight feathers: simplest disproof of evolution

Please Ros reread my contribution. I was replying to a participant who asked about arguments, and that's an argument. If you will review some of my other postings you will see I do grant a certain inevitability

I speculate that it suggests a plan not from a scientific point of view but intuitive. I can't defend it through appeal to established Scientific Regimen but of course some of Einstein's early works were products of intuition

I'd agree as an apodictical existential pantheist that there's no "plan" in the usual sense of a Supernatural Creator adjusting the constants so as to make our evolution possible; but I'm merely speculating that some abstraction with which we're not yet equipped to deal, a perfectly logical and "natural" principle, will confirm action suggesting a "plan"

(In comparing myself with Einstein I'm not comparing myself to him, I'm only comparing myself to Einstein)

There's nothing to argue over the Haldane dilemma, you either can add, subtract, multiply, and divide numbers, or you can't. The Haldane dilemma is not any more complicated than that. Sorry.

The Haldane dilemma says it would take quadrillions of years for any sort of an evolutionary process to produce our present living world; the increasing number of valid radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains, mainly between 20K and 40K years of age, indicates that no more than a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of years are three to be had.

http://www.newgeology.us/NoTime4Evolution.pdf
http://youtu.be/zvWdWbLcJvQ

The theory of evolution is FUBAR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_slang

No indeed, Foof. According to the general principle that nothing is entirely anything….intelligence resides everywhere; eg, the Universe is Her body and all the activity therein Her thinking


Indeed well put

Wow Foof, really well put

Unless, that is, his math suffers from exceptions of which we're not yet aware

Scanning the postings above would seem to indicate that at least some of us are, or think we are. I'm not one to assume either side knows all the answers but intuition somehow pushes me to favor the Scientific over the conventional religion, which seems to suffer so much anomaly, contradiction, and paradox

It's those exceptions my intuition asserts, revealing a sort of "plan" on the part of It, Her, or a largely abstract principle, which further leaps of scientific inquiry will tend to confirm. Whether or not it's okay to call this perfectly natural entity "God" or some advanced form of "physics," is merely a matter of spewing anthropomorphism

We just don't yet have language adequate to the definition. You can call It, Her, anything you want to

Actually, there is no Haldene's dilemma. There is merely the misrepresentation by creationists.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/07/haldanes-nondil.html

Humans and chimps had a common ancestor 6-7 million years ago.
DNA sequencing says humans and chimps have a difference of 154 genes.
Haldene's formula and assumptions states a new gene could be fixed every 300 generations.
In 6 million years with an assumption of 20 year generations that means 1000 genes could have been fixed in the time 154 genes were. But we have to remember that both species are fixing genes, not just one so we could see about 2000 differences in that time frame. (pandasthumb article lists it as 1667 differences)

Haldane himself apologized for the "fuckup" He only later realized that many genetic traits could be fixed simultaneously.
Gunga never reads "the rest of the story" because it doesn't help his fairy tales

became



Quadrillions of years? Nope.

The only thing anyone gets from that list is proof that your desperate and irrational fear of evolution has caused you to lose your mind, and the only arguments you have left to present are paroxysms of antiquated idiocy.

Ros with however no offense to Gung I'd agree that the idea of evolution causes subliminal fear accounting for all the ridicule of scientific evidence. Why for instance couldn't God have invented evolution

For reasons diametric, that is the dismissal of the devout, I hasten to assure the scientific-minded of our crew that my God isn't the same one Gung insists upon. The apodictical existential pantheist's Almighty is a perfectly natural phenom, with the admission that attaching the anthropomorpnic term "God" is an entirely an arbitrary choice

There are plenty of Christian and Jewish and other practicing theists in science. What there IS NO ROOM FOR is the "personal god squad with the Creationist mentality". I don't know any Creationist scientists in my field NONE (and I know quite a few).

In symposia there will be the "What have you heard lately from the Evangelical Crowd"
REMEMBER, many of us really don't give a squat about whether its a god, or not, or the Flying Pastaferian. Its a war to make sure that science is NOT washed away as the increasing clawhold on the GOP and the Tea Party by the Fundamentalists doesn't result in a challenge to the First Amendment. They've recently been trying (by means of a really well funded effort) to chip away at challenging the "definitions" of science and religion as stated in the Establishment Clause. Fortunately anything that's wound up in court has been stopped , but that doesn't mean that this will continue.

Your profile, Farmer, suggests you are actually a farmer, and of course there's nothing wrong with that but I'd guess farming to contain many Creationists. However you might rephrase that clause as it seems contradictory

If this is an argument contrary to what I've suggested then you must have misunderstood me. If you're merely buttressing our respective positions than, why, well said, Farmer

It could. But poofism isn't an answer.

At a philosophical level anything is "possible". But that's just a mind game which provides no more answers than magic. A wise person understands the possible and recognizes it academically, but quickly moves beyond it to a more meaningful and useful path.

The only thing more tiresome than someone who can't recognize that anything is possible, is listening to those who revel it that realization as though they have found something meaningful.

my profile really says nothing about whether I am a farmer . It DOES say that Im a semi retired scientist.

Yet some speculation seems more likely than other. For instance "Creation" is so fraught with paradox and contradiction that it only seems logical to assume She, It, has always existed in one form or another. Thus continual Big Bang, Evolution, Dissolution, Big Crunch, then next Big Bang. But why


Well, the recently discovered interdependence of the constants seems to imply things are the way they are because they can't be any other way, suggesting that a likely reason for Her existence is that "nothingness" isn't a viable concept, itself fraught with incongruities

Sure it's all "philosophy," but where there seems to be of a common thread, a number of assumptions that hang together, aren't contradictory and don't contradict one another, Ros, one shouldn't offhand reject the speculations of philo that could eventually lead to more and better theory

Actually I had suspected as much--since your viewpoint so closely matches my own--merely joshing about the farming idea. However don't find this revelation in your profile, at least not on the intro page

No, that is not more logical, as it adds an unnecessary layer of complexity.


I would never reject any speculation which might lead to a better theory. I'm observing that the idea of "anything is possible" leads nowhere. It is an end point, not a beginning.

She, It, has always existed in one form or another

Okay Ros but how so

I see nothing at all complicated about the idea of Her, It, the Whole Shebang having existed forever

Then my comment might not apply to you and yours. However some remarks you had made



….suggest a rejection of philosophical speculation. I was merely arguing in favor of tentative conclusion drawn from a "philosophical level" where none of the props seem self-conbtradictory nor conflict with one another

I've not advanced any such speculation. In fact I've maintained repeatedly that one of the reasons for so much puzzlement as to why She permits so much humanoid suffering is that She can't do the impossible

The Evolutionist's Dilemma

What do you do when you've invested so much in a theory, even proselytized others on its scientific validity, and then see every new archaeological discovery prove it wrong?

You go into cognitive dissonant mode.

The massive collection of fossils discovered to date show that survival of the fittest (as attributed to evolution) never happened -- the vast majority of fossils seem to represent the "fit." The "unfit," the ones that allegedly didn't survive, are practically non-existent.

Yes, we all know how genetic code pass down mostly the beneficial mutations to perpetuate the hardiest of the species. But this nonsense misses the point. In scenarios of "survival of the fittest" or "natural selection," there would be those that were "not fit" or "not selected." Where are they? The absence of the unfit in the fossil record indicates that all life forms came into existence already "fit" and "selected." How do you account for such a practically flawless success rate?

Of course, there is the misguided notion of how the misfit generally don't spawn successive generations and therefore leave few telltale traces. The problem with this notion is that accidental chaos happens in far greater numbers than accidental benefits. Fossils of the misfit, even if they never survived to spawn successive generations, should have far outnumbered our current collection of fossils. But they hardly exist.

Natural selection on the genetic level cannot account for this inexplicable lack of "misfit" fossils. Before the first drastically different family of life forms (the first dog, the first bird, the first snake, etc.) came into existence, the genetic code could not possibly have held the genetic design for their precise characteristics. At some point, drastic genetic mutations must have occurred to produce these new life forms. And for every "first" of a new life form, there would have to have been the spawning of literally millions of misfit predecessor variations that were weeded out by natural selection. Then you'd have survival of the fittest. As it stands, we have only the fit.

It's one thing to claim that natural selection on the genetic level can weed out bad genes. But that the genetic process can weed out, prior to birth, the first birds without wings, fish without fins, lions without teeth, etc., is preposterous. These aberrations would have to exist before they could be eliminated by natural selection.

The possible variations of "misfit" creatures are almost limitless. There is simply no explanation for how nature produced virtually every new life form in a state already fit to survive, as the fossil record shows over and over.

There's no question that life forms can mutate in relatively minor ways to adapt to an environment. But for completely new families of creatures to suddenly appear without any telltale signs of trial-and-error that clearly show how the myriad of misfits fell by the wayside till nature finally got it right, is impossible to explain.

Evolution is a modern invention of a God-less religion. It's interesting how a common response you get when confronting evolutionists with legitimate disproofs of evolution is: "You don't understand evolution." Really? The only ones who seem to "understand" evolution are those who believe in it.

Another common response is the label "creationist," regardless of whether you mentioned Creation or not. This is ironic coming from those who believe in primitive notions of how life inexplicably develops.

Another response is ridicule. This is understandable; if you have nothing to defend your position, what else can you resort to?

Evolution is little more than lunacy cloaked in scientific jargon. Sorcery and witchcraft were also "scientific" and "well understood" in their time. None of it was ever based on evidence, yet had strong followings. Evolution fulfills 21st Century man's need to believe in a great mystical power beyond himself. Welcome to the supernatural.

-- Please feel free to copy, post, email and freely distribute this message --

That's a really good analysis.