Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

gungasnake

I missed your long reply to farmerman above. I do tend to get put off by seeing long copied passages and I usually read them later. But anyway, the lack of transitional fossils is a myth, a lie, a fabrication. Yes, there are transitional fossils. Why this still gets peddled confounds me. As farmerman says, you need to get acquainted with evolution in the 21st century.

... Based on the information available in 1957, Haldane estimated the number of gene differences between closely related species (not to be confused with the number of gene changes required for speciation) as typically about 1,000. It would therefore take about 300,000 generations for this amount of divergence to evolve by natural selection. Haldane thought this was broadly consistent with the fossil record, so he saw no 'dilemma'.

In the 1960s new evidence showed more genetic diversity within and between species than was previously assumed. It therefore became problematic that natural selection seemed either too slow to explain the observed diversity or too costly in mortality for species to survive. Hence the 'dilemma'. Motoo Kimura used Haldane's figures to support his own theory of molecular evolution, maintaining that a large proportion of change at the molecular level is not due to selection but to genetic drift. In the resulting debate geneticists picked holes in Haldane's analysis, and showed that in some circumstances natural selection could be much quicker than Haldane had claimed. (Haldane died in 1964, so he took no part in this debate.) By the mid-1970s it was generally accepted that Haldane's Dilemma was not a serious problem. [Note 2]

The issue was reopened in 1992 by George C. Williams in his book Natural Selection: Domains, Levels and Challenges, where he argued that Haldane's Dilemma had not been solved, but 'merely faded away, because people got interested in other things'. The subject has also taken a bizarre twist in recent years as Haldane's Dilemma has been seized on by Creationists as an objection to evolution. (Searching the Web for 'Haldane's Dilemma', a large proportion of the results will be Creationist websites. A key Creationist example is here, and an evolutionist response is here.) This raises a dilemma of a different kind, as there is a danger that anyone who takes Haldane's Dilemma seriously will be misrepresented as a crypto-Creationist, or misquoted to give support to Creationism. So just to be clear: I do not think Haldane's Dilemma is a major problem for evolutionary theory. On the other hand, I do think that George C. Williams raised some interesting points. The real value of the Dilemma is now not so much to set any firm limit to the rate of evolution, as to focus attention on important questions about how natural selection works ...

Stevo2 wrote:

gungasnake

I missed your long reply to farmerman above. I do tend to get put off by seeing long copied passages and I usually read them later. But anyway, the lack of transitional fossils is a myth, a lie, a fabrication. Yes, there are transitional fossils. Why this still gets peddled confounds me. As farmerman says, you need to get acquainted with evolution in the 21st century.

Well, evolutionists usually get around the lack of large numbers of transitional forms by stating , 'well, in reality, EVERYTHING is a transitional form'.

As readilly may be seen in gunga's posts, the manner of one's discourse says much - in fact, more frequently than not says all that needs be said - of the merit of that one's contribution to the discussion in progress.....

Well, evolutionists usually get around the lack of large numbers of transitional forms by stating , 'well, in reality, EVERYTHING is a transitional form'.

Great way of dodging falsifiability.

Just as I had mentioned earlier when dealing with another classic evolutionary dodge of falsifiability -----

'we may not know HOW evolution happened, we just know that it MUST have'.

In this way, ALL evidence is constantly interpreted as supporting evolution NO MATTER WHAT.

Evolution is protected as the presupposition no matter what evidence turns up, with falsifiability thrown under the bus.

If scientists today dug up a Trex with a human in his tummy, the mantra would be --

'well whaddya know, I guess a few dinosaurs musta survived much longer than we thought. But of course evolution still happened, we all know that.'

As readilly may be seen in gunga's posts, the manner of one's discourse says much - in fact, more frequently than not says all that needs be said - of the merit of that one's contribution to the discussion in progress.

ReMine - an electrical engineer by training and education, and by trade until he threw that over to devote his time and energy to debunking The Theory of Evolution - has an all but singular take on geneticist Haldane's 1957 postulate. Perhaps worth noting is that ReMine's "work" is to be found, apart from his own vanity press publications and his own website, only in Creationist/ID-iot publications and websites. Perhaps worth noting as well is that ReMine has campaigned - vigorously, for years - to have his "work" accepted and published by any legitimate, peer-reviewed professional or academic journal, or even merely to be cited as supporting, authoritative material in any article, by any author, appearing in any such journal - without success. And perhaps equally worthy of note is that ReMine and adherents protest shrilly that the Evil Atheistic Darwinist Cabal conspires actively to suppress his astounding findings, which findings would of course dispell the lies of the Evil Atheistic Darwinist Cabal, thoroughly, conclusively, and once and for all destroying the Heathen Humanist Heresy to which Science (that's Capital "S" Science, mind you) is held in thrall, which heresy, by its arrogant incompatability with the Immutable Truth of The Revealed Word of God, stands clearly, demonstrably in error.

Now, there is the fact "Haldane's Dillema" as a counter to evolutionary development is a notion dismissed - for various reasons - by legitimate mainstream biologists and genetecists from around the late 1960's, as discussed HERE:

Quote:

... Based on the information available in 1957, Haldane estimated the number of gene differences between closely related species (not to be confused with the number of gene changes required for speciation) as typically about 1,000. It would therefore take about 300,000 generations for this amount of divergence to evolve by natural selection. Haldane thought this was broadly consistent with the fossil record, so he saw no 'dilemma'.

In the 1960s new evidence showed more genetic diversity within and between species than was previously assumed. It therefore became problematic that natural selection seemed either too slow to explain the observed diversity or too costly in mortality for species to survive. Hence the 'dilemma'. Motoo Kimura used Haldane's figures to support his own theory of molecular evolution, maintaining that a large proportion of change at the molecular level is not due to selection but to genetic drift. In the resulting debate geneticists picked holes in Haldane's analysis, and showed that in some circumstances natural selection could be much quicker than Haldane had claimed. (Haldane died in 1964, so he took no part in this debate.) By the mid-1970s it was generally accepted that Haldane's Dilemma was not a serious problem. [Note 2]

The issue was reopened in 1992 by George C. Williams in his book Natural Selection: Domains, Levels and Challenges, where he argued that Haldane's Dilemma had not been solved, but 'merely faded away, because people got interested in other things'. The subject has also taken a bizarre twist in recent years as Haldane's Dilemma has been seized on by Creationists as an objection to evolution. (Searching the Web for 'Haldane's Dilemma', a large proportion of the results will be Creationist websites. A key Creationist example is here, and an evolutionist response is here.) This raises a dilemma of a different kind, as there is a danger that anyone who takes Haldane's Dilemma seriously will be misrepresented as a crypto-Creationist, or misquoted to give support to Creationism. So just to be clear: I do not think Haldane's Dilemma is a major problem for evolutionary theory. On the other hand, I do think that George C. Williams raised some interesting points. The real value of the Dilemma is now not so much to set any firm limit to the rate of evolution, as to focus attention on important questions about how natural selection works ...

That pretty unambiguously illustrates the academically and scientifically dishonest Creationists/ID-iot practice of representing the existence of unresolved questions pertaining to some one or another particular as invalidating - despite overwhelmingly preponderant evidence to the contrary - the overall general consensus of the legitimate mainstream academic and scientific communities ... "Evolutionists don't agree on {this or that} so obviously the whole Theory of Evolution is wrong".


And then there's THIS (see also addendum slideshow {note: 23 page .pdf download}), which led to THIS:

Quote:

These findings of McGinnis et al demonstrate and confirm that a single minor chemical alignment shift in a small segment of DNA - a very, very minor "mutation" - can and does have major, lasting, broadly proliferating, cascading impact on many aspects of an organism's subsequent development. Think FEEDBACK LOOPS and BUTTERFLY EFFECT.

or even oil exploration as it relates to geologic evolution.

timberlandko wrote:

As readilly may be seen in gunga's posts, the manner of one's discourse says much - in fact, more frequently than not says all that needs be said - of the merit of that one's contribution to the discussion in progress.

ReMine - an electrical engineer by training and education, and by trade until he threw that over to devote his time and energy to debunking The Theory of Evolution - has an all but singular take on geneticist Haldane's 1957 postulate. Perhaps worth noting is that ReMine's "work" is to be found, apart from his own vanity press publications and his own website, only in Creationist/ID-iot publications and websites. Perhaps worth noting as well is that ReMine has campaigned - vigorously, for years - to have his "work" accepted and published by any legitimate, peer-reviewed professional or academic journal, or even merely to be cited as supporting, authoritative material in any article, by any author, appearing in any such journal - without success. And perhaps equally worthy of note is that ReMine and adherents protest shrilly that the Evil Atheistic Darwinist Cabal conspires actively to suppress his astounding findings, which findings would of course dispell the lies of the Evil Atheistic Darwinist Cabal, thoroughly, conclusively, and once and for all destroying the Heathen Humanist Heresy to which Science (that's Capital "S" Science, mind you) is held in thrall, which heresy, by its arrogant incompatability with the Immutable Truth of The Revealed Word of God, stands clearly, demonstrably in error.

Now, there is the fact "Haldane's Dillema" as a counter to evolutionary development is a notion dismissed - for various reasons - by legitimate mainstream biologists and genetecists from around the late 1960's, as discussed HERE:

Quote:

... Based on the information available in 1957, Haldane estimated the number of gene differences between closely related species (not to be confused with the number of gene changes required for speciation) as typically about 1,000. It would therefore take about 300,000 generations for this amount of divergence to evolve by natural selection. Haldane thought this was broadly consistent with the fossil record, so he saw no 'dilemma'.

In the 1960s new evidence showed more genetic diversity within and between species than was previously assumed. It therefore became problematic that natural selection seemed either too slow to explain the observed diversity or too costly in mortality for species to survive. Hence the 'dilemma'. Motoo Kimura used Haldane's figures to support his own theory of molecular evolution, maintaining that a large proportion of change at the molecular level is not due to selection but to genetic drift. In the resulting debate geneticists picked holes in Haldane's analysis, and showed that in some circumstances natural selection could be much quicker than Haldane had claimed. (Haldane died in 1964, so he took no part in this debate.) By the mid-1970s it was generally accepted that Haldane's Dilemma was not a serious problem. [Note 2]

The issue was reopened in 1992 by George C. Williams in his book Natural Selection: Domains, Levels and Challenges, where he argued that Haldane's Dilemma had not been solved, but 'merely faded away, because people got interested in other things'. The subject has also taken a bizarre twist in recent years as Haldane's Dilemma has been seized on by Creationists as an objection to evolution. (Searching the Web for 'Haldane's Dilemma', a large proportion of the results will be Creationist websites. A key Creationist example is here, and an evolutionist response is here.) This raises a dilemma of a different kind, as there is a danger that anyone who takes Haldane's Dilemma seriously will be misrepresented as a crypto-Creationist, or misquoted to give support to Creationism. So just to be clear: I do not think Haldane's Dilemma is a major problem for evolutionary theory. On the other hand, I do think that George C. Williams raised some interesting points. The real value of the Dilemma is now not so much to set any firm limit to the rate of evolution, as to focus attention on important questions about how natural selection works ...

That pretty unambiguously illustrates the academically and scientifically dishonest Creationists/ID-iot practice of representing the existence of unresolved questions pertaining to some one or another particular as invalidating - despite overwhelmingly preponderant evidence to the contrary - the overall general consensus of the legitimate mainstream academic and scientific communities ... "Evolutionists don't agree on {this or that} so obviously the whole Theory of Evolution is wrong".


And then there's THIS (see also addendum slideshow {note: 23 page .pdf download}), which led to THIS:

Quote:

These findings of McGinnis et al demonstrate and confirm that a single minor chemical alignment shift in a small segment of DNA - a very, very minor "mutation" - can and does have major, lasting, broadly proliferating, cascading impact on many aspects of an organism's subsequent development. Think FEEDBACK LOOPS and BUTTERFLY EFFECT.

This is an important post/point.

Because of that I'm sure it will be overlooked by the creationists here.

Act and speak like a pig, and you can expect to be treated like one, at least by me.

ANYBODY remeber Rex the WOnder Squirrel. He was a vocal Galahad for the Creationists fr quite a spell. Then there was Jack of All trades, and then Medved. ALL were found to be basically tellers of "The Big Lie" regarding Creation "science". They were so bound in their religious outlook that they missed many of their own deity's rules .

Maybe someone can summarize the "important point" in their own words. The ambiguous -at the same time sensational- presentation leaves me suspicious. I feel confident what investigation will find, but maybe someone can save me the time.

chiso wrote:

Maybe someone can summarize the "important point" in their own words. The ambiguous -at the same time sensational- presentation leaves me suspicious. I feel confident what investigation will find, but maybe someone can save me the time.

I think the value of taking the time to understand it properly is largely the point being made.