It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
kyviecaldges
reply to post by helldiver
The alternative hypothesis is simply that evolution does not occur in a linear fashion.
That makes timing a bit of a mystery.
So if someone is using a computer to model evolution, say using some type of whatever recursive alogarithm would represent that best, then applying the punctuated equilibrium model would invalidate all the input information.
If things evolve at a random pace that can sometimes be slow, but sometimes fast then the number of values effecting change becomes essentially limitless thus making all input variables equally as likely.
The simple need for an alternate, or ad hoc, hypothesis from gradualism into punctuated equilibrium invalidates the theory.
Because the evolution from gradualism into punctuated equilibrium is done strictly out of a lack of evidence.
This supposed theory was created solely to explain away deficiencies in the original hypothesis.
These are all hallmarks of fallacy.edit on 25/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.
It is just another fad, and next year you will see droves of Christians come on here all touting some new tactic. But right now we have to deal with the "evolution is faith" bunch.
helldiver
kyviecaldges
reply to post by helldiver
The alternative hypothesis is simply that evolution does not occur in a linear fashion.
That makes timing a bit of a mystery.
So if someone is using a computer to model evolution, say using some type of whatever recursive alogarithm would represent that best, then applying the punctuated equilibrium model would invalidate all the input information.
If things evolve at a random pace that can sometimes be slow, but sometimes fast then the number of values effecting change becomes essentially limitless thus making all input variables equally as likely.
The simple need for an alternate, or ad hoc, hypothesis from gradualism into punctuated equilibrium invalidates the theory.
Because the evolution from gradualism into punctuated equilibrium is done strictly out of a lack of evidence.
This supposed theory was created solely to explain away deficiencies in the original hypothesis.
These are all hallmarks of fallacy.edit on 25/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.
So, just to be clear, you're saying that variable rates of evolutionary change over geological time scales actually invalidates gradualism and punctuated equilibrium?
edit on 25-11-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)
helldiver
kyviecaldges
reply to post by helldiver
The alternative hypothesis is simply that evolution does not occur in a linear fashion.
That makes timing a bit of a mystery.
So if someone is using a computer to model evolution, say using some type of whatever recursive alogarithm would represent that best, then applying the punctuated equilibrium model would invalidate all the input information.
If things evolve at a random pace that can sometimes be slow, but sometimes fast then the number of values effecting change becomes essentially limitless thus making all input variables equally as likely.
The simple need for an alternate, or ad hoc, hypothesis from gradualism into punctuated equilibrium invalidates the theory.
Because the evolution from gradualism into punctuated equilibrium is done strictly out of a lack of evidence.
This supposed theory was created solely to explain away deficiencies in the original hypothesis.
These are all hallmarks of fallacy.edit on 25/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.
So, just to be clear, you're saying that variable rates of evolutionary change over geological time scales actually invalidates gradualism and punctuated equilibrium?
edit on 25-11-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)
peter vlar
reply to post by kyviecaldges
The problem though us that it seems that you are approaching biological systems as though they are mathematical equations with a linear route and a defined static answer and that just isn't the case with biological organisms. If evolution had a set or stated goal then sure you could uplugin whatever variable you want and run the numbers but this simply is not the case no matter how much you want it to be so. You're lookin at evolution under a microscope without vein aware of the true scope of it. It's like standing on an 1000 mile long interstate highway next to a sign that says the next town is 10 miles away but saying its a lie because you can't see where the road disappears to over the horizon.
peter vlar
reply to post by kyviecaldges
How am I misfeasance anything?
I'm going by your posts which discuss input variables and conclusions. It's all there. If I've misinterpreted it then I apologize as I'm simply trying to understand your ever evolving argument.
I totally get what you are proposing. I'm simy countering that its incorrect supposition on your part with nothing to support it.
peter vlar
reply to post by kyviecaldges
Whatever helps you sleep at night. I tried using verifiable science, your response was similar to my 5 year olds when she doesn't get to watch TV. I and others have attempted reason, you ignore it. I tried to be nice and go with the old live and let live axiom because there's no point in arguing with you and here you are claiming checkmate. Sorry, but to put someone in checkmate you must be playing against an opponent. The only person you're playing against is yourself. Ciao indeed.
Ignorance is overrated as well yet this thread keeps on keeping on.
AngryCymraeg
reply to post by kyviecaldges
(Facepalms)
I don't think you really understand evolution properly, do you?
AngryCymraeg
reply to post by kyviecaldges
(Facepalms)
I don't think you really understand evolution properly, do you?
helldiver
AngryCymraeg
reply to post by kyviecaldges
(Facepalms)
I don't think you really understand evolution properly, do you?
Or logic for that matter!
nixie_nox
By trying to claim that evolution is nothing but faith is the latest trick by fundamentals. Saying that evolution is a belief like a religion is just the latest used car salesman tactic by the religious wing nuts to try to deter people from science and evolution by discrediting it and an attempt to play on emotions by comparing the understanding of evolution to blind faith.
It is just another fad, and next year you will see droves of Christians come on here all touting some new tactic. But right now we have to deal with the "evolution is faith" bunch.
The attempt Is to make us out to be hypocrites. It is a dishonest game of semantics.
As I have always said, if Jesus wanted people to go out and spread his religion, he would of made Christians better salesmen.