Chance or Design (Evolution or Creation)

[Right Divider]

You're right. Hobie said that. My apologies. You're right; he's wrong. As even professional creationists admit, new taxa evolve from old ones, and do indeed produce more species, not less.

Doesn't help the "theory of evolution".

Neither does evolutionary theory. The earth produced living things, which diversified according to kind. God didn't tell us how; He just said it happened.

So you're some sort of unique "evolutionist"?

Many don't today. Creationism has evolved over time. :BRAVO:

Darwinism had SO many problems that it, too, "evolved". It had to since it was a complete failure.

Most major creationist organizations acknowledge the evolution of new species, genera and families of organisms. Don't know of any yet willing to acknowledge the evolution of new classes, but it's progress. Again, my apologizing with confusing you with a paleo YE.

:rotfl:

My apologies for you confusing yourself with a Darwinian or a Neo-Darwinian.... so many evolutionists, so little time.

And yes, I know that evolved creationists don't like to use the "E" word. Which is fine. Darwin didn't either. He called it "descent with modification." So you're good with that, too.

The word "evolution" is fine as long as we stick with the observable and don't extrapolate into the normal evolutionist fairy tale.

Actually they don't claim it's an "unlimited free-for-all", either. All living things are constrained by the development of organisms that came before. So, for example, while it might be useful for birds to have dentine in beaks to make them harder and more durable, they can't just evolve that; there's no viable transition that would work. Likewise, humans would be greatly enhanced by a second pair of hands. But there's no way to evolve it that would have viable transitional forms.

The greatly improved hearing of mammals could have been engineered more simply than by borrowing some jaw bones (which gather sound in reptiles) and miniaturizing them.

Wild speculation... typical evolutionary theory.

But that had feasible transitional forms, and therefore could evolve. This is an important part of evolutionary theory, one people often miss.

Great story telling.

Yep. You're a thoughtful person. That can be dangerous to your creationist beliefs.

Funny stuff... are you here all week?

You do realize that the origin of life isn't part of evolutionary theory, right? Even Darwin just supposed God created the first living things.

You are, once again, not in the mainstream of evolutionary theory.

Comes down to evidence. And that indicates a common ancestor. And we know the evidence works, because we can check it with the genes of organisms of known descent.

Do you know anything at all about the difference between operational science with real evidence and real experimental support and the WILD historical story telling of "evolution"?

More like misconceptions. Many creationists think evolutionary theory is about the origin of life. And many don't know anything about the genetic and fossil evidence for common descent.

You have a different story than mainstream "evolution". Your's is just a different fairy tale.

 

[Stripe]

So you're some sort of unique "evolutionists"?

No. He's a Darwinist. They just love it when their equivocation becomes infused in the discourse.

He believes that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection, but he uses the definition of "things change" to pretend that others are also evolutionists.

YEC deny the tenets of Darwinism:
There is no universal common ancestor.
Random mutations are only ever destructive.
Natural selection is so weak to be utterly insignificant.

Darwinists have nothing but equivocation and obfuscation.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You're right. Hobie said that. My apologies. You're right; he's wrong. As even professional creationists admit, new taxa evolve from old ones, and do indeed produce more species, not less.

Doesn't help the "theory of evolution".

More precisely, it is evolution.

Barbarian observes:
The earth produced living things, which diversified according to kind. God didn't tell us how; He just said it happened.

So you're some sort of unique "evolutionists"?

Don't see how. That's evolutionary theory. Being a science, it can't confirm God. But scientists can.

Darwinism had SO many problems that it, too, "evolved".

Which of Darwin's four points do you think have turned out to be false? I'm not asking to make a point, I'd really like to know what you think.

It had to since it was a complete failure.

There was a huge flaw in classic Darwinism. Darwin was unable to explain how a new characteristic could survive and spread in a population. Everyone assumed heredity was in the blood and if so, a new characteristic would be swamped like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint.

And then Mendel's work was rediscovered and suddenly it all fit. It was the rediscovery of Mendel's work that convinced scientists that Darwin was right. The last world-class anti-Darwinian biologist died early in the 20th century.

My apologies for you confusing yourself with a Darwinian or a Neo-Darwinian.... so many evolutionists, so little time.

You're still stuck on stories creationists tell about "Darwinists." It would be instructive to find out for yourself.

The word "evolution" is fine as long as we stick with observable and don't extrapolate into the normal evolutionist fairy tale.

Stuff like DNA analyses fitting phylogenies done before anyone knew what DNA is. The many, many series of transitional forms noted by Kurt Wise, even as he doesn't believe the evidence. The numerous predictions of evolutionary theory that have been since confirmed. Would you like to learn about some of them?

The greatly improved hearing of mammals could have been engineered more simply than by borrowing some jaw bones (which gather sound in reptiles) and miniaturizing them.

Wild speculation...

Nope. Observed data from the fossil record. We can see the gradual change in reptiles, as the bones in the lower jaw get smaller, and finally detach completely and form the middle ear of mammals. But it's not just in the fossil record. We can see the same process in mammalian embryos. Remember when I told you that new taxa are constrained by the forms of ancestors. This is a good example. But it's lavishly documented in fossil record, embryology, and anatomy. Lots of evidence.

typical evolutionary theory.

Yep. Evidence is what establishes a theory.

Barbarian observes:
Yep. You're a thoughtful person. That can be dangerous to your creationist beliefs.

Funny stuff...

It's quite serious. Thinking for yourself is the first step to becoming an evolutionist.

are you here all week?

Off and on.

Barbarian observes:
You do realize that the origin of life isn't part of evolutionary theory, right? Even Darwin just supposed God created the first living things.

You are, once again, not in the mainstream of evolutionary theory.

Since even Stephen Gould described himself as an orthodox Darwinian, I think you've again mistaken the creationist depiction of evolutionary theory for the real thing. It's not about the origin of life. Pretty much any origin, including supernatural poofing would be consistent with evolutionary theory.

Comes down to evidence. And that indicates a common ancestor. And we know the evidence works, because we can check it with the genes of organisms of known descent.

Do you know anything at all about the difference between operational science with real evidence

Two universities,and several major corporations thought so. Enough to let me teach it. "Operational scien ce" isn't what you seem to think it is. The notion that we can't know anything we didn't personally observe is flapdoodle. I had to learn fire investigation on one of my jobs; it's not necessary to have watched a building burn to figure out how it happened. And it's not necessary to have watched therapsids evolve into primitive mammals to see the evidence and realize how it happened.

The embryological and genetic experiments, for example. And the anatomical connections that still exist in mammals, but only make sense if we are descended from reptiles. Would you like to learn about some of that evidence?

Barbarian observes:
More like misconceptions. Many creationists think evolutionary theory is about the origin of life. And many don't know anything about the genetic and fossil evidence for common descent.

You have a different story than mainstream "evolution".

Nope. It's just what your leaders told you. But most of them didn't know any more than you do.

The Theory of Evolution is Not an Explanation for the Origin of Life
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-010-0225-1

The five most common misunderstandings about evolution
It is important to make it clear that evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. It is a theory to explain how species change over time.
https://phys.org/news/2016-02-common-evolution.html

What Evolution is not:
3. Is NOT concerned with the origin of life... (it deals only with the origin of species).
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/ev.not.html

“Evolution explains the origin of life”
Evolution does not explain the origin of life, but how it developed after it appeared on earth. In fact, the scientific definition of evolution is “a change in the allele distribution in a gene pool”, where “allele distribution” is how often a trait appears and “gene pool” refers to the collective genetic material of a reproducing population of a life form. In other words, to have evolution there needs to be a pre-existing gene pool, meaning life already must exist. Some theories attempt to explain the origin of life, notably including the abiogenesis theory. Evolution is not concerned with this question.
https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/en/online/maagarmada/life_sci/common-misconceptions-about-evolution

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian observes:You're right. Hobie said that. My apologies. You're right; he's wrong. As even professional creationists admit, new taxa evolve from old ones, and do indeed produce more species, not less.More precisely, it is evolution.Barbarian observes: The earth produced living things, which diversified according to kind. God didn't tell us how; He just said it happened.Don't see how. That's evolutionary theory. Being a science, it can't confirm God. But scientists can. Which of Darwin's four points do you think have turned out to be false? I'm not asking to make a point, I'd really like to know what you think.There was a huge flaw in classic Darwinism. Darwin was unable to explain how a new characteristic could survive and spread in a population. Everyone assumed heredity was in the blood and if so, a new characteristic would be swamped like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint.And then Mendel's work was rediscovered and suddenly it all fit. It was the rediscovery of Mendel's work that convinced scientists that Darwin was right. The last world-class anti-Darwinian biologist died early in the 20th century.You're still stuck on stories creationists tell about "Darwinists." It would be instructive to find out for yourself. Stuff like DNA analyses fitting phylogenies done before anyone knew what DNA is. The many, many series of transitional forms noted by Kurt Wise, even as he doesn't believe the evidence. The numerous predictions of evolutionary theory that have been since confirmed. Would you like to learn about some of them?The greatly improved hearing of mammals could have been engineered more simply than by borrowing some jaw bones (which gather sound in reptiles) and miniaturizing them.Nope. Observed data from the fossil record. We can see the gradual change in reptiles, as the bones in the lower jaw get smaller, and finally detach completely and form the middle ear of mammals. But it's not just in the fossil record. We can see the same process in mammalian embryos. Remember when I told you that new taxa are constrained by the forms of ancestors. This is a good example. But it's lavishly documented in fossil record, embryology, and anatomy. Lots of evidence.Yep. Evidence is what establishes a theory.Barbarian observes:Yep. You're a thoughtful person. That can be dangerous to your creationist beliefs.It's quite serious. Thinking for yourself is the first step to becoming an evolutionist.Off and on.Barbarian observes:You do realize that the origin of life isn't part of evolutionary theory, right? Even Darwin just supposed God created the first living things.Since even Stephen Gould described himself as an orthodox Darwinian, I think you've again mistaken the creationist depiction of evolutionary theory for the real thing. It's not about the origin of life. Pretty much any origin, including supernatural poofing would be consistent with evolutionary theory.Comes down to evidence. And that indicates a common ancestor. And we know the evidence works, because we can check it with the genes of organisms of known descent.Two universities,and several major corporations thought so. Enough to let me teach it. "Operational scien ce" isn't what you seem to think it is. The notion that we can't know anything we didn't personally observe is flapdoodle. I had to learn fire investigation on one of my jobs; it's not necessary to have watched a building burn to figure out how it happened. And it's not necessary to have watched therapsids evolve into primitive mammals to see the evidence and realize how it happened.The embryological and genetic experiments, for example. And the anatomical connections that still exist in mammals, but only make sense if we are descended from reptiles. Would you like to learn about some of that evidence?Barbarian observes:More like misconceptions. Many creationists think evolutionary theory is about the origin of life. And many don't know anything about the genetic and fossil evidence for common descent.Nope. It's just what your leaders told you. But most of them didn't know any more than you do.[COLOR="#800000"]The Theory of Evolution is Not an Explanation for the Origin of Life[/COLOR]
[url]https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-010-0225-1[/url][COLOR="#800000"]The five most common misunderstandings about evolution
It is important to make it clear that evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. It is a theory to explain how species change over time. [/COLOR]
[url]https://phys.org/news/2016-02-common-evolution.html[/url][COLOR="#800000"]What Evolution is not:
3. Is NOT concerned with the origin of life... (it deals only with the origin of species).[/COLOR]
[url]http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/ev.not.html[/url][COLOR="#800000"]“Evolution explains the origin of life”Evolution does not explain the origin of life, but how it developed after it appeared on earth. In fact, the scientific definition of evolution is “a change in the allele distribution in a gene pool”, where “allele distribution” is how often a trait appears and “gene pool” refers to the collective genetic material of a reproducing population of a life form. In other words, to have evolution there needs to be a pre-existing gene pool, meaning life already must exist. Some theories attempt to explain the origin of life, notably including the abiogenesis theory. Evolution is not concerned with this question.[/COLOR]https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/en/online/maagarmada/life_sci/common-misconceptions-about-evolution

YEC denies all aspects of Darwinism as significant, necessary or possible descriptions of reality.

There cannot be a universal common ancestor.

Random mutations can never improve information.

Natural selection might play a minor role in limited situations, but they are so rare and insignificant as to be next to worthless in a sensible discussion over how today's variety arose.

Darwinists here have been told these things over and over, but continue to insist that the discussion be conducted on the assumption that their idea is correct.

They are religious devotees, not inquirers into science.

 

[Right Divider]

More precisely, it is evolution.

Once again... we observe change .... we do NOT observe a single common ancestor to all living things.

Barbarian observes:
The earth produced living things, which diversified according to kind. God didn't tell us how; He just said it happened.

You continue to push your false "the earth produced living things" nonsense based on forcing your theory to be correct and then finding the "evidence". Fallacious logic.

Don't see how. That's evolutionary theory. Being a science, it can't confirm God. But scientists can.

What in the heck does that mean?

Which of Darwin's four points do you think have turned out to be false? I'm not asking to make a point, I'd really like to know what you think.

Darwin's "four points" are all duh points.

There was a huge flaw in classic Darwinism. Darwin was unable to explain how a new characteristic could survive and spread in a population. Everyone assumed heredity was in the blood and if so, a new characteristic would be swamped like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint.

And then Mendel's work was rediscovered and suddenly it all fit. It was the rediscovery of Mendel's work that convinced scientists that Darwin was right. The last world-class anti-Darwinian biologist died early in the 20th century.

We know that the "kinds" diversify with variations within significant limits. These are the actual observations that we can and do make. Woopee.

You're still stuck on stories creationists tell about "Darwinists." It would be instructive to find out for yourself.

:rotfl:

Stuff like DNA analyses fitting phylogenies done before anyone knew what DNA is. The many, many series of transitional forms noted by Kurt Wise, even as he doesn't believe the evidence. The numerous predictions of evolutionary theory that have been since confirmed. Would you like to learn about some of them?

More smoke and mirrors.

The greatly improved hearing of mammals could have been engineered more simply than by borrowing some jaw bones (which gather sound in reptiles) and miniaturizing them.

Mr. KnowItAll hard at work again.

TL;DR

 

[The Barbarian]

Once again... we observe change .... we do NOT observe a single common ancestor to all living things.

That's what the evidence shows. Genetic analyses indicate a common ancestor for all known living things on earth. And we can check that by analyzing the genes of organisms of known descent. So do the very large number of series of transistional fossils. So do embryos, which have traces of evolutionary development in their growth. And many other ways.

You continue to push your false "the earth produce living things" nonsense

God said it. And I believe it, and you should, too. Science is just catching up.

Don't see how. That's evolutionary theory. Being a science, it can't confirm God. But scientists can.

What in the heck does that mean?

Something very important. Science is, by its very methodology, unable to look at the supernatural. Scientists, however, are not limited to science as the only way of knowing. It's O.K. to be unscientific when circumstances call for that. I am often unscientific myself. If this still puzzles you, perhaps this will help:

"Plumbing can't confirm God. But plumbers can."

Darwin's "four points" are all duh points.

Of course. That was Huxley's response when he realized how simple evolution is. "How stupid of me not to have realized it." While the details can be incredibly complex, the fundamental process isn't that hard to understand.

There was a huge flaw in classic Darwinism. Darwin was unable to explain how a new characteristic could survive and spread in a population. Everyone assumed heredity was in the blood and if so, a new characteristic would be swamped like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint.

And then Mendel's work was rediscovered and suddenly it all fit. It was the rediscovery of Mendel's work that convinced scientists that Darwin was right. The last world-class anti-Darwinian biologist died early in the 20th century.

We know that the "kinds" diversify with variations within significant limits.

Creationists now generally limit evolution to new species, new genera, and new families. A few might allow it to the level of new classes of animals, but most don't. It's progress. In my youth, creationists usually denied that new species evolve.

The biggest problem for the "evolution, but only within limits" argument, is that no one can show us any such limits or even any organism that has evolved as far as it can with no further mutations or change.

Stuff like DNA analyses fitting phylogenies done before anyone knew what DNA is. The many, many series of transitional forms noted by Kurt Wise, even as he doesn't believe the evidence. The numerous predictions of evolutionary theory that have been since confirmed. Would you like to learn about some of them?

More smoke and mirrors.

All hard evidence, as even honest creationists admit.

Barbarian observes:
The greatly improved hearing of mammals could have been engineered more simply than by borrowing some jaw bones (which gather sound in reptiles) and miniaturizing them.

Mr. KnowItAll hard at work again.

Knowing what one is talking about is a huge advantage, yes. Those two additional bones make the eardrum much, much more sensitive by a relatively inefficient series of "levers" that would not be found in an engineered solution. But it works. And more importantly, as the fossil record shows, it could be done in a series of steps, each one advantageous enough to be preserved by natural selection.

BTW, I know a secret for appearing to know everything:

Only talk about things you know.

 

[Right Divider]

That's what the evidence shows.

No, it does not and repeating it ad nauseam will not change that.

Genetic analyses indicate a common ancestor for all known living things on earth.

Only a highly biased starting point can lead to that conclusion.

And we can check that by analyzing the genes of organisms of known descent. So do the very large number of series of transistional fossils. So do embryos, which have traces of evolutionary development in their growth. And many other ways.

So you still believe that embryo myth? Even though is was exposed as a fraud so many years ago.

God said it. And I believe it, and you should, too. Science is just catching up.

:rotfl:

Something very important. Science is, by its very methodology, unable to look at the supernatural.

It also has problems with the natural in the distant past.

Scientists, however, are not limited to science as the only way of knowing.

That's for sure.... they can use myths and fairy tales.

It's O.K. to be unscientific when circumstances call for that. I am often unscientific myself. If this still puzzles you, perhaps this will help:

"Plumbing can't confirm God. But plumbers can."
:juggle:

Of course. That was Huxley's response when he realized how simple evolution is. "How stupid of me not to have realized it." While the details can be incredibly complex, the fundamental process isn't that hard to understand.

Stating the obvious does not prove common descend from a single ancestor.

There was a huge flaw in classic Darwinism. Darwin was unable to explain how a new characteristic could survive and spread in a population. Everyone assumed heredity was in the blood and if so, a new characteristic would be swamped like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint.

And then Mendel's work was rediscovered and suddenly it all fit. It was the rediscovery of Mendel's work that convinced scientists that Darwin was right. The last world-class anti-Darwinian biologist died early in the 20th century.

Duplicate... stop the cut and paste nonsense.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
That's what the evidence shows.

No, it does not and repeating it ad nauseam will not change that.

Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise, admits that there is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

No point in denying the fact.

Barbarian notes that DNA analyses were done to test phylogenies obtained by earlier scientists, and confirmed that hypothesis.

Only a highly biased starting point can lead to that conclusion.

You don't understand how science works. A hypothesis has to be at least in principle, testable. When the function of DNA was discovered, scientists had a way of testing the hypothesis that all living things on Earth have a common ancestor. And when tested, the hypothesis was confirmed.

That's how it works. If the evidence had come out differently, the scientists would have falsified the hypothesis. Just that simple.

Barbarian observes:
And we can check that by analyzing the genes of organisms of known descent. So do the very large number of series of transistional fossils. So do embryos, which have traces of evolutionary development in their growth. And many other ways.

So you still believe that embryo myth? Even though is was exposed as a fraud so many years ago.

You're confusing recapitulation with evolutionary development. Two entirely different things. The fact that (for example) an opossum fetus starts out with the reptilian jaw joint, and during development, changes to the mammalian jaw joint and ear, merely shows that there are limits to evolution. Organisms are constrained in their evolution by things that went on before them.

You continue to push your false "the earth produce living things" nonsense

Barbarian observes:
God said it. And I believe it, and you should, too.

:rotfl:

Galatians 6:7 7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Think carefully about that.

(puzzlement as to why science can't consider God, but scientists can)

It's O.K. to be unscientific when circumstances call for that. I am often unscientific myself. If this still puzzles you, perhaps this will help:

"Plumbing can't confirm God. But plumbers can."

:juggle:

Stating the obvious does not prove common descend from a single ancestor.

Testing the hypothesis with DNA analysis will do that, however. And we know it works, because we can test the method on organisms of known descent.

There was a huge flaw in classic Darwinism. Darwin was unable to explain how a new characteristic could survive and spread in a population. Everyone assumed heredity was in the blood and if so, a new characteristic would be swamped like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint.

And then Mendel's work was rediscovered and suddenly it all fit. It was the rediscovery of Mendel's work that convinced scientists that Darwin was right. The last world-class anti-Darwinian biologist died early in the 20th century.

Duplicate... stop the cut and paste nonsense.

When a lesson is difficult, repetition often helps.

 

[Right Divider]

Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise, admits that there is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

I could not care less what Kurt Wise thinks.

No point in denying the fact.

Science shows that there are significant limits to the variations of the various kinds of life on earth.

Barbarian notes that DNA analyses were done to test phylogenies obtained by earlier scientists, and confirmed that hypothesis.

Sure it did... just keep on believing.

You don't understand how science works.

If we had a nickel for every time that an evolutionist said that, we would be rich.

A hypothesis has to be at least in principle, testable. When the function of DNA was discovered, scientists had a way of testing the hypothesis that all living things on Earth have a common ancestor. And when tested, the hypothesis was confirmed.

Baloney... and repeated baloney is still baloney.

That's how it works. If the evidence had come out differently, the scientists would have falsified the hypothesis. Just that simple.

:juggle:

Barbarian observes:
And we can check that by analyzing the genes of organisms of known descent. So do the very large number of series of transistional fossils. So do embryos, which have traces of evolutionary development in their growth. And many other ways.

Don't tell me, let me guess.... horse.

 

[The Barbarian]

I could not care less what Kurt Wise thinks.

Of course you don't. He's a YE creationist who actually knows what he's talking about.

Science shows that there are significant limits to the variations of the various kinds of life on earth.

For example, no insects with bones, no mammals with feathers, and so on. That's in the theory, too. You just have no idea what evolution is about.

Sure it did... just keep on believing.

"They're lying, all of them are lying!" isn't a very original ploy.

If we had a nickel for every time that an evolutionist said that, we be rich.

And if you learned just one thing for every time you were told that, you'd know what you're talking about.

Baloney... and repeated baloney is still baloney.

No point in denying the facts. Learn about the science, and you won't be so frustrated.

Barbarian observes:
And we can check that by analyzing the genes of organisms of known descent. So do the very large number of series of transistional fossils. So do embryos, which have traces of evolutionary development in their growth. And many other ways.

Don't tell me, let me guess.... horse.

Well, let's take a look...your fellow YE creationist says...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory.

Keep in mind, Wise honestly believes that these aren't really evolution in action. He's merely honest enough to admit that they are very good evidence for it. He still believes that at some point, there will be a creationist explanation for these that fits the evidence.

That's an honest position and a respectable one.

 

[Lon]

Yep. It's merely denial ....

Your guy just denied what Wise carefully documented....

And Wise nicely picks apart their faulty reasoning. While he remains convinced of YE creationism because of "my understanding of scripture", he quite honestly admits the the large number of transitional series is evidence for macroevolution.

I'm still not sure if you are following, there were 3 posts in the link. The last was from Kurt Wise.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm still not sure if you are following, there were 3 posts in the link. The last was from Kurt Wise.

Yes. The first two were riddled with misconceptions. Wise neatly disposed of them in his reply.

 

[Right Divider]

Of course you don't. He's a YE creationist who actually knows what he's talking about.

Apparently not.

For example, no insects with bones, no mammals with feathers, and so on. That's in the theory, too. You just have no idea what evolution is about.

Yes, we know that the "theory" is all inclusive and unfalsifiable. That's some "theory" can fit any "facts".

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian regarding Dr. Wise:
Of course you don't. He's a YE creationist who actually knows what he's talking about.

Apparently not.

He has a PhD in paleontology. You?

Barbarian, regarding some limit to evolution:
For example, no insects with bones, no mammals with feathers, and so on. That's in the theory, too. You just have no idea what evolution is about.

Yes, we know that the "theory" is all inclusive and unfalsifiable.

You just learned that it's not "all-inclusive" (for example, it's not about the origin of life)and that it's falsible (mammals with feathers would falsify vertebrate phylogeny, for example). Perhaps you don't know what "all-inclusive" and "falsible" mean?

That's some "theory" can fit any "facts".

Would have been, but as you now realize, it's not.

 

[Right Divider]

He has a PhD in paleontology. You?

A degree worshiper are you?

You just learned that it's not "all-inclusive" (for example, it's not about the origin of life)and that it's falsible (mammals with feathers would falsify vertebrate phylogeny, for example). Perhaps you don't know what "all-inclusive" and "falsible" mean?

As usual, you misunderstand.

You've made it clear that the "theory of evolution" can make sense of any and all "facts". That's not a scientific theory, that's a fairy tale.

 

[Stripe]

I could not care less what Kurt Wise thinks.

That's not a good reaction to a Barbarian assertion. As we know, he lies constantly.

For example:

UNLIKELY MECHANISM OF CHANGE As for the mode of this change, this writer disagrees with [those] who claim that natural selection acting on mutations is the mechanism by which the Flores skeleton morphology was derived. Natural selection acts on observed variation, but the neanderthal, flores, and sapiens developmental programs do not seem to have been part of any erectine population variation. And, given the highly infrequent and usually detrimental nature of phenotypically expressed mutations, as well as the complex nature of developmental programs, it is unlikely that any of these morphologies arose by mutation. Furthermore, as Haldane suggested — in what is known as Haldane’s Dilemma — natural selection acts much too slowly to explain substantial human variation, especially if it occurred entirely within a few centuries of the Flood... In fact, generalizing these observations to all organisms, natural selection acting on mutations is an unlikely mechanism for the origin of biological form throughout the young-age creation model.

-The Flores Skeleton and Human Baraminology

Wise has a nuanced view on evolutionary theory. He acknowledges that natural selection might be possible, but denies that it has any significant impact.

Of course, Barbarian knows this — 6 has told him numerous times — but he is dishonest beyond repair and loves to shove wedges in wherever he can.

He's a troll and a liar — and likely going senile as well.

Don't ever form an opinion on something because of his dishonest presentations.

 

[Stripe]

Wise has a nuanced view on evolutionary theory.

Actually, it's not that nuanced. It's pretty straightforward. Barbarian just wants it to mean something that it doesn't say.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Right divider disparages Kurt Wise's competence in paleontology)

Barbarian observes:
He has a PhD in paleontology. You?

A degree worshiper are you?

Just noting that people who know what they're talking about are more credible than people who don't.

(assertion that evolution is unfalsible and "all-inclusive")

Barbarian observes:
You just learned that it's not "all-inclusive" (for example, it's not about the origin of life)and that it's falsible (mammals with feathers would falsify vertebrate phylogeny, for example). Perhaps you don't know what "all-inclusive" and "falsible" mean?

As usual, you misunderstand.

You've made it clear that the "theory of evolution" can make sense of any and all "facts".

Nope I've just shown you a way that you could falsify it. Everyone saw it. Why deny it? Your fairy tales notwithstanding, I've shown you that evolutionary theory could be falsified by any number of things, such as a rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian deposits, mammals with feathers, and so on. And as you now realize evolutionary theory recognizes that there are all sorts of constraints on evolution, such as the way mammalian hearing became more acute.

You'd be a lot more formidable here, if you learned what evolution is, and what the theory has to say about it. Why not put in a little time to learn those things? It would be a great help to you.

 

[Right Divider]

(Right divider disparages Kurt Wise's competence in paleontology)

Barbarian observes:
He has a PhD in paleontology. You?

You get more dishonest with every post. I have not disparaged Kurt Wise in any way.

That is just a bold-faced LIE.

 

[Stripe]

Right divider disparages Kurt Wise's competence in paleontology.

Barbarian lies about Kurt Wise's position. Darwinists are desperate for validation.

Barbarian observes:

It's a pity that nothing he says is honest.

He has a PhD in paleontology... People who know what they're talking about are more credible than people who don't.

But you reject everything he says, preferring made-up things.

Evolutionary theory could be falsified by ... a rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian deposits.

Nope.

This is a hopeful Darwinist tactic. They propose an impossible task and celebrate "failure" to complete it as validation of their precious religion.

You'd be a lot more formidable here, if you learned what evolution is.

Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection.

Darwinists want us to argue against "change" because they know they can't defend what is being challenged.

They're intellectual cowards.

Why not put in a little time to learn these things? It would be a great help to you.