There's the Theory of Evolution and the Interpretation of Evolution

Proving Earth is flat, covered by a dome, would solve the question of a creator.

Yet if the opposite were true, it would prove there is no creator, in the very same way.


Who is stopping us from knowing the truth, wants to HIDE the truth.

Double post

originally posted by: turbonium1
Proving Earth is flat, covered by a dome, would solve the question of a creator.

Yet if the opposite were true, it would prove there is no creator, in the very same way.


Who is stopping us from knowing the truth, wants to HIDE the truth.

No one is stopping the truth - it is right here hiding in plain sight - in the very act of seeing.
Can anything appear without the seeing?

Stop looking at the appearance and look toward what is looking.

a reply to: chr0naut

Nonsense.

People do it all the time.

Judges 6:37-40 is one (quite ancient) example.

Performing repeatable, double blind experiments seems fairly trivially achievable. The belief that no-one ever has done so is just laughable.

Fine then.

Lets see the documentation for those 'repeatable, double blind experiments' that seem fairly trivial to you.

Repeat that experiment described in Judges and document the results. No cheating. No word games.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Single common ancestor - untestable.
Gradual process reaching back millions of years - untestable.

Common ancestry is testable, gradual process reaching back millions of years is testable. Nobody says you can test for the LUCA, but you can observe the fossil record and see the progression of organisms over time dating back billions of years and extrapolate that pretty easily. To pretend LUCA doesn't exist means you need a completely different explanation for the diversity of life on earth, so your claim does not even make sense. LUCA is an inevitable implication of evolution. You really don't get what a scientific theory is and that's why your arguments are terrible. LUCA is the only thing that makes sense based on the evolutionary process and documented fossil history.

Sorry, but if evolution is testable in all its sub-processes, then so is Intelligent Design, usually by the same criteria.

Dumbest thing I've ever read from you. There isn't a single test that can confirm any aspect of ID. Not one.

Also, something the scientificmethod is NOT good at is at weeding out theories and hypotheses that are evidenced against.

That's a real statement?

... like the fact that there is evidence against a single common ancestor, like vastly different branches of the phylogenetic tree where RNA transcription does not follow the same rules as other branches and particular codon sequences represent different stop encoding or different amino acids. That evidences against a single common ancestor somewhat.

That is not evidence against LUCA in the slightest. 4 billion years of evolution changes functions of things.

... or where we see rapid heritable genetic change (epigenetic change) appearing in a population faster than a heritable trait can spread. That evidences against gradualism somewhat.

NOT evidence against LUCA. What a joke. You just love your buzzwords. Epigenetics doesn't change a goddamn thing about common ancestry. It's just a different way evolution can occur.

... or where we can see issues in achieving speciational change because the act/s of speciation would also remove breeding capability from the 'newly minted' organisms, making the speciated genome a genetic dead end, somewhat.

This is the oldest straw man in the book. Why have your arguments gotten worse over the years... Speciation usually takes numerous generations. Jesus Christ dude, I have already specifically discussed this exact point with you in the past. You do absolutely nothing to upgrade your knowledge or better yourself, you just deny and exploit semantics repeatedly. You STILL don't understand micro or macro evolution and still don't understand speciation and STILL don't even grasp what a scientific theory is. Get a real argument.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

Nonsense.

People do it all the time.

Judges 6:37-40 is one (quite ancient) example.

Performing repeatable, double blind experiments seems fairly trivially achievable. The belief that no-one ever has done so is just laughable.

Fine then.

Lets see the documentation for those 'repeatable, double blind experiments' that seem fairly trivial to you.

Repeat that experiment described in Judges and document the results. No cheating. No word games.

I REALLY hope he was joking with that nonsense. It reminds me of when he said he prayed for rain and it rained, so it counts as evidence for god. Absolute laughable nonsense.

a reply to: rnaa

originally posted by: rnaa
But there was no 'Theory of Evolution' until the 1930's at the earliest.

I've not seen a historical account of evolutionary theory that supports this claim. If you have a source it would be appreciated.

The first formalized scientific theory of evolution is widely accredited to Darwin – most everyone knows and accepts this.

originally posted by: rnaa
The idea that we all come from one common ancestor is derived from the idea of evolution. If evolution didn't support OCA, then the idea of OCA would have been abandoned.

What 'idea' of evolution are you referring to? (Can't tell if you're using "idea" and "theory" interchangeably or if by "idea" you're referring to the MES.)

The "idea" that we all come from one common ancestor is referred to as Common Descent, which is actually one of the main principles underpinning the current "theory" of evolution.

originally posted by: rnaa
Evolution implies OCA.

If by evolution you mean [Common] Descent with modification (est. by Darwin), then I have to agree. But is it so surprising? CD naturally supposes in its very meaning, an OCA. They imply each other in a way.

I don't know that anyone who conceived of common descent ( or some version of it) couldn't rather quickly conclude an ultimate ancestor. It doesn't seem like such a stretch to infer OCA. Point is, OCA didn't require being "extrapolated" out by the MES.

Immanuel Kant conceived it. Erasmus Darwin conceived it . Chuck Darwin conceived it. All well before the MES. No data extrapolation needed (unlike the Big Bang).

With all that said, it still doesn't change the fact that OCA is a hypothesis, One that is intimately connected to common descent, the theory. This is what I meant that the theory relies on the hypothesis.

Now - What's the impact to the theory if it turns out that there was more than one CA? (completely hypothetical of course)

originally posted by: rnaa
Evolution was quite obvious to anyone who looked close enough. Darwin was just one of many who were trying to explain it. His contribution was the hypothesis of natural selection.

Darwin formulated the first scientific theory of evolution that's still very much relevant today. That you refer to it as a hypothesis is completely incorrect.

originally posted by: rnaa
The earliest actual theory didn't begin to take shape until the 1930's.

This still needs a citation.

originally posted by: rnaa
How can you possibly imagine a scientist (however far back in history) coming up with the idea of OCA before the concept of evolution? It just doesn't make sense when there is obvious evidence of evolution all around him in nature, and zero obvious evidence for OCA.

Easily - the obvious evidence of evolution at that time was Common Descent. OCA is a natural extension

a reply to: rnaa

originally posted by: rnaa

This is not rocket science.

You're absolutely right. It's far more complex than that.

a reply to: rnaa

originally posted by: rnaa
Yes. And bushes resolve to one trunk eventually (not necessarily true, but this is an imperfect metaphor).

What is the difference if it is a "bush of life" instead of a "tree of life"?

Web or net may have been the better metaphor on my part. Point is, it's not as linear as the traditional tree of life. It complicates the resolution of phylogenetic relationships. HGT happens across species and domains - trees rely on vertical transmission. Viruses continue to be ignored in all of this for some reason.

originally posted by: rnaa
If a speciation occurs due to HGT, both of the contributors were themselves part of the same phylogenetic tree at some point lower down the bush. HGT makes it more interesting, but doesn't negate anything, it doesn't invalidate the MES, it doesn't invalidate OCA.

It doesn't until it does. If LUCA was a conglomeration resulting from HGT, and then exchanged genetic material laterally after its origin, well again, the subsequent lineages become, erm, less linear.

originally posted by: rnaa
Have you any evidence that a life form from the phylogenic 'bush' where all modern life exists engaged in HGT with a life form from an entirely separate phylogenic 'bush'. No, you haven't.

Good question. No, but my guess is LUCA absolutely must have (assuming there was just one).

Some experts think there could've been a consortium of LUCA's. And what about viruses again? Where do they fall into all of this? They currently reside "outside the bush", yet they impact every domain of life, and likely their evolutionary histories.

originally posted by: rnaa
Any evidence of HGT is between life forms in OUR bush, which IN THEORY can be traced back to one common ancestor, the Last Universal Common Ancestor.

Hypothetically.

originally posted by: rnaa
NOBODY (with more than two brain cells to rub together) has EVER said that the MES is complete, perfect, or unchangeable.

It's a self-evident truth.

One of the main problems I see with 'evolution', is that it's used as a catch-all term - which is applied to virtually any, every, and all variations, diversification, or changes - to all species, which ever existed, or still exists, on Earth.

That is very convenient to the evolution supporters. 'Evolution' happens all the time, look at the Galapagos Islands, where species have 'evolved' into very unique variations 'over a long time'. !!

This assumes every one of those 'distinct' species lived elsewhere, for a long time, as one, distinct species. And sometime, later on, a small group of them decided to live far away, on remote, desolate, islands. The very same thing happened with all the other species, too. Each species lived near the Galapagos, as one, identical species. All the species had a small group, or a few, which decided to leave everything, for some reason, and live on one of the most barren, desolate, uninhabitable places on Earth.

------evolution is an 'extremely slow, gradual process, which takes millions of years, at least'

Darwin arrives on the Galapagos, where he sees all of those species, which we already know exist, have 'evolved' into very unique variations of those species!!

Darwin claims it is because the Galapagos Islands are so remote, and desolate, that these species have 'evolved', 'over a long time'. This is called 'adaptation'. A species adapts to the environment, as each and every later generation is born with slight differences. And after millions of years, they've 'evolved' completely.


If the Galapagos are so remote, and that allowed all those species to 'evolve', how did they get there to begin with? Was there a 'Galapagos Ferry' that shuttled them all to the Islands??

Were they left there by early explorers, who wanted to see their survival skills?

Maybe the islands were part of the mainland, and it chipped off, and floated miles away? If that's true, it happened 'millions of years ago', too. Anything you can't account for happened millions of years ago - it just DOES!


Everything so far is not evolution of the species. Thousands of species have variations within the single species, all over the world, right this moment, and many live within the same area, long before people ever came around.

Certain traits of a species already EXIST within, same as your dad was bald, but you won't be bald like him, while your brother is going bald, like your dad. Same as height is genetically passed along. This is not 'evolution', of any kind.

And I'm not even going to start on the 'humans came from apes' bs!

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: rnaa

originally posted by: rnaa
But there was no 'Theory of Evolution' until the 1930's at the earliest.

I've not seen a historical account of evolutionary theory that supports this claim. If you have a source it would be appreciated.

The first formalized scientific theory of evolution is widely accredited to Darwin – most everyone knows and accepts this.

originally posted by: rnaa
The idea that we all come from one common ancestor is derived from the idea of evolution. If evolution didn't support OCA, then the idea of OCA would have been abandoned.

What 'idea' of evolution are you referring to? (Can't tell if you're using "idea" and "theory" interchangeably or if by "idea" you're referring to the MES.)

The "idea" that we all come from one common ancestor is referred to as Common Descent, which is actually one of the main principles underpinning the current "theory" of evolution.

originally posted by: rnaa
Evolution implies OCA.

If by evolution you mean [Common] Descent with modification (est. by Darwin), then I have to agree. But is it so surprising? CD naturally supposes in its very meaning, an OCA. They imply each other in a way.

I don't know that anyone who conceived of common descent ( or some version of it) couldn't rather quickly conclude an ultimate ancestor. It doesn't seem like such a stretch to infer OCA. Point is, OCA didn't require being "extrapolated" out by the MES.

Immanuel Kant conceived it. Erasmus Darwin conceived it . Chuck Darwin conceived it. All well before the MES. No data extrapolation needed (unlike the Big Bang).

With all that said, it still doesn't change the fact that OCA is a hypothesis, One that is intimately connected to common descent, the theory. This is what I meant that the theory relies on the hypothesis.

Now - What's the impact to the theory if it turns out that there was more than one CA? (completely hypothetical of course)

originally posted by: rnaa
Evolution was quite obvious to anyone who looked close enough. Darwin was just one of many who were trying to explain it. His contribution was the hypothesis of natural selection.

Darwin formulated the first scientific theory of evolution that's still very much relevant today. That you refer to it as a hypothesis is completely incorrect.

originally posted by: rnaa
The earliest actual theory didn't begin to take shape until the 1930's.

This still needs a citation.

originally posted by: rnaa
How can you possibly imagine a scientist (however far back in history) coming up with the idea of OCA before the concept of evolution? It just doesn't make sense when there is obvious evidence of evolution all around him in nature, and zero obvious evidence for OCA.

Easily - the obvious evidence of evolution at that time was Common Descent. OCA is a natural extension

No 'common ancestor' ever existed, and every species on Earth, which lives today, which is now extinct, was/is the very same, single species, from day one, and forever after.

Speaking of conveniences for evolutionists - extinct species are ideal for claiming evolution exists. Because these species don't exist anymore, they are called 'ancestors'! The species have similar features to current species, so they must be our 'ancestors'!

If modern apes were extinct, they'd be ANOTHER one of our human 'ancestors', without a doubt!!


It's complete nonsense, cloaked in biological science, where genetic building blocks are 'stacked up', twisted, to suit evolutionists' arguments.

Evidence is the only basis to prove evolution exists, specifically, any species that 'evolves' into a completely different species.


The basis of this specific argument is that EVERY species on Earth is actually 'evolving' right now, which will eventually turn all species into completely DIFFERENT species!!

So that is where we find one of the most incredibly absurd, ridiculous claim - it happens little by little, over millions of years, so that's why it's never seen, or detected, in any way. Evolution is the argument claiming we're changing into non-humans, without knowing it, without seeing it, without a single piece of EVIDENCE for it.

That's 'science', okay, so don't question the 'experts'!


'Evolution' was the theory that created all life on Earth, which turned apes into humans.
'Gravity' is the theory that holds everything to a spinning ball, and never stops spinning, holds the entire atmosphere to the ball, as it spins, which is incredibly convenient, since the atmosphere we see above, never moves. Everything moves, that's why we don't see it move. Or feel the Earth move, either. But, hey, it DOES move, okay?

Gravity stops pulling objects which are in orbit. This is when we see astronauts floating. No gravity here, in space!

No gravity anywhere, beyond orbit. And no gravity until we arrive near the moon. And that's gravity on the moon, pulling us towards the lunar surface. Not as much as Earth's gravity, though.

Earth's gravity also holds the moon in place. Not an astronaut, though. He floats in space. Where gravity doesn't pull him to Earth, or the moon. But Earth's gravity DOES hold the moon, okay??

a reply to: PhotonEffect

I've not seen a historical account of evolutionary theory that supports this claim. If you have a source it would be appreciated.

Try this

The first formalized scientific theory of evolution is widely accredited to Darwin – most everyone knows and accepts this.

(source)

Naturalists began to focus on the variability of species; the emergence of paleontology with the concept of extinction further undermined static views of nature. In the early 19th century Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744 – 1829) proposed his theory of the transmutation of species, the first fully formed theory of evolution.

In 1858 Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace published a new evolutionary theory, explained in detail in Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859). Unlike Lamarck, Darwin proposed common descent and a branching tree of life, meaning that two very different species could share a common ancestor. Darwin based his theory on the idea of natural selection: it synthesized a broad range of evidence from animal husbandry, biogeography, geology, morphology, and embryology. Debate over Darwin's work led to the rapid acceptance of the general concept of evolution, but the specific mechanism he proposed, natural selection, was not widely accepted until it was revived by developments in biology that occurred during the 1920s through the 1940s. Before that time most biologists regarded other factors as responsible for evolution. Alternatives to natural selection suggested during "the eclipse of Darwinism" (c. 1880 to 1920) included inheritance of acquired characteristics (neo-Lamarckism), an innate drive for change (orthogenesis), and sudden large mutations (saltationism). Mendelian genetics, a series of 19th-century experiments with pea plant variations rediscovered in 1900, was integrated with natural selection by Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and Sewall Wright during the 1910s to 1930s, and resulted in the founding of the new discipline of population genetics. During the 1930s and 1940s population genetics became integrated with other biological fields, resulting in a widely applicable theory of evolution that encompassed much of biology—the modern synthesis.

The irony is that science is supposed to be about gaining knowledge of our world, and how life was created.

So they hold up two ridiculous theories, as if they are PROVEN TRUE! Not that they ever actually CLAIM they are proven true, of course. That would be dishonest!!

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Easily - the obvious evidence of evolution at that time was Common Descent. OCA is a natural extension

Are you honestly trying to promote the idea that the concept of Common Descent was 'dreamt up' (with no evidence what-so-ever, mind you) and THEN the concept of evolution was dreamt up to support that idea?

Common descent is a necessary implication of evolution.

Scientists and other thinkers reflecting on the patterns of similarity among the huge biodiversity came to realize that the obvious answer was evolution from one form to several, and if that answer was correct it meant that if you wind back the clock, then there must have been OCA.

I actually think you and I are saying the same thing here, but your 'angle' is, IMO, more obtuse.

I think you are saying that when people looked at the similarities in biodiversity, they said 'gee, they must have descended from a common ancestor; then evolution was identified to explain all that. The problem with that approach is that Common Descent IS evolution. But there is no obvious reason for folks to say fishes and elephants had a common ancestor unless they understood evolution, there was no evidence for that idea, no justification for it. All people had was the outer branches of the 'tree of life' (or bush if you prefer).

So I am saying that when people looked at the similarities in biodiversity, they said 'gee, there is evolution going on here, and that implies common descent, and that implies that eventually there must have been a common ancestor.

a reply to: turbonium1

Gravity stops pulling objects which are in orbit. This is when we see astronauts floating. No gravity here, in space!

Wrong, sorry. Gravity is what keeps those astronauts in orbit.

Earth's gravity also holds the moon in place. Not an astronaut, though. He floats in space. Where gravity doesn't pull him to Earth, or the moon. But Earth's gravity DOES hold the moon, okay??

Yes, Okay.

Except that the astronaut is 'floating in space' in exactly the same way the the moon is 'floating in space'. In other words, both the moon and the astronaut is 'held' in place(i.e. in orbit) by the same
effect of gravity.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Single common ancestor - untestable.
Gradual process reaching back millions of years - untestable.

Common ancestry is testable, gradual process reaching back millions of years is testable. Nobody says you can test for the LUCA, but you can observe the fossil record and see the progression of organisms over time dating back billions of years and extrapolate that pretty easily. To pretend LUCA doesn't exist means you need a completely different explanation for the diversity of life on earth, so your claim does not even make sense. LUCA is an inevitable implication of evolution. You really don't get what a scientific theory is and that's why your arguments are terrible. LUCA is the only thing that makes sense based on the evolutionary process and documented fossil history.

Sorry, but if evolution is testable in all its sub-processes, then so is Intelligent Design, usually by the same criteria.

Dumbest thing I've ever read from you. There isn't a single test that can confirm any aspect of ID. Not one.

Also, something the scientificmethod is NOT good at is at weeding out theories and hypotheses that are evidenced against.

That's a real statement?

... like the fact that there is evidence against a single common ancestor, like vastly different branches of the phylogenetic tree where RNA transcription does not follow the same rules as other branches and particular codon sequences represent different stop encoding or different amino acids. That evidences against a single common ancestor somewhat.

That is not evidence against LUCA in the slightest. 4 billion years of evolution changes functions of things.

... or where we see rapid heritable genetic change (epigenetic change) appearing in a population faster than a heritable trait can spread. That evidences against gradualism somewhat.

NOT evidence against LUCA. What a joke. You just love your buzzwords. Epigenetics doesn't change a goddamn thing about common ancestry. It's just a different way evolution can occur.

... or where we can see issues in achieving speciational change because the act/s of speciation would also remove breeding capability from the 'newly minted' organisms, making the speciated genome a genetic dead end, somewhat.

This is the oldest straw man in the book. Why have your arguments gotten worse over the years... Speciation usually takes numerous generations. Jesus Christ dude, I have already specifically discussed this exact point with you in the past. You do absolutely nothing to upgrade your knowledge or better yourself, you just deny and exploit semantics repeatedly. You STILL don't understand micro or macro evolution and still don't understand speciation and STILL don't even grasp what a scientific theory is. Get a real argument.

Self contradictory.

Either testable or not.

Either there is gradualism or there isn't.

Absolute laughable nonsense.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

Nonsense.

People do it all the time.

Judges 6:37-40 is one (quite ancient) example.

Performing repeatable, double blind experiments seems fairly trivially achievable. The belief that no-one ever has done so is just laughable.

Fine then.

Lets see the documentation for those 'repeatable, double blind experiments' that seem fairly trivial to you.

Repeat that experiment described in Judges and document the results. No cheating. No word games.

I REALLY hope he was joking with that nonsense. It reminds me of when he said he prayed for rain and it rained, so it counts as evidence for god. Absolute laughable nonsense.

When I prayed, It rained a deluge, enough to put out a house fire, out of a cloudless sky,within seconds of praying (and I didn't pray for rain). The circumstances were particularly weird.

You still haven't given any explanation as to what in the 'Omega idea' was absurd. When I asked last time, you told me how hypotheses were testable.

But sure, ridicule all you want. Ad hominem is usually a sure fire indicator that you have run out of legitimate argument.

We have never, ever, found a single species, on Earth, to show any indication of 'evolving' into a different species.

Not over 10,000 years.


Let's consider the odds...

Every species is evolving, continually, into different species, and we are all evolving now...

About 8.7 million different species exist on Earth, today, by current estimates.

That's a fairly decent sample size, to find 'evolution' of just one, single species.... isn't it?

Over 10,000 years, nothing.


How many thousands of years does it take before they finally have no choice but to admit 'evolution' was all made up, it's just a bunch of BS, and how sorry, and ashamed, they all are?


So what are the odds?

Multiply 10,000 x 8.7 million.

87 billion to 1.


You don't realize millions of species, over 10,000 years, combined together, are more than enough to prove that evolution is a complete fairy tale.

Evolution is some great theory, isn't it? Better odds of winning the $10 million lottery, but it's great to hope for miracles,
anyway!


Try to 'process' that. You might finally see results, long before a few million years go by!

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: turbonium1

Gravity stops pulling objects which are in orbit. This is when we see astronauts floating. No gravity here, in space!

Wrong, sorry. Gravity is what keeps those astronauts in orbit.

Earth's gravity also holds the moon in place. Not an astronaut, though. He floats in space. Where gravity doesn't pull him to Earth, or the moon. But Earth's gravity DOES hold the moon, okay??

Yes, Okay.

Except that the astronaut is 'floating in space' in exactly the same way the the moon is 'floating in space'. In other words, both the moon and the astronaut is 'held' in place(i.e. in orbit) by the same
effect of gravity.

Floating around, within 0 gravity of space, is not exactly being "held in place".

If there is a force on Earth, which pulls everything towards the Earth, it cannot suddenly 'hold' things far away, in place, at a distance. I know you have no other excuse, but that's not even close to reality!


Anyone knows that a force pulling objects toward it, will have only greater force, as the objects are closer to that force which draws them in. A child understands that concept.

Think about a magnet, which is pulling metal objects towards it, closer and closer, until finally, the magnetic force is strong enough to make the objects shoot up, and stick to the magnet.

That is what 'gravity' is supposed to do, on larger scale. When we all can see for ourselves that gravity cannot do what is claimed to do, not what you'd like it to do, not what ANY force can do, it's probably time to accept the reality.

One of the unsolvable problems with 'gravity' is the moon. If Earth had gravity, the moon would be stuck to Earth.

The whole argument for gravity is based on the principle of being a force which pulls objects TOWARDS IT. Forever, constantly, pulling objects towards it.

Any objects which are within range of that force will be pulled towards it, and no objects would be able to stop, or repel, that force...unless there is an opposing force, acting against it.