Jump to content

Theory of evolution


Mr H
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Pinkiebee said:

This is what I find most strange about the whole affair 

 

People who are of a conspiratorial mind and extremely sceptical of what they are told make by far the best scientist if they have the intellect to actualy go out and disprove established dogma.  We would be nowhere as a species if they didnt exist.

 

For the rest of us. Insisting that claims are explained is a very healthy state of mind. But you do need the concentration span to get to the end of the explination.  Which does seem a bit lacking.

 

But then some people doubt everything from one sub set of the population but lap up every word issued by another subset with no skepticism at all.

 

This leaves them extremly vulnerable to being exploited. Yet they seem incapable of seeing their victimisation. In fact they seem to  embrace  it

 

 

Hey I just came across this paper. Picked up some media attention. Found the original here: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abm2296

 

Thought you may enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Pinkiebee said:

That's making a big deal out of the views of Casey luskins.

 

Who somewhat deceptively calls him self a " scientist"  he has allegedly got " scientiific" qualifications. Though given his track record for telling lies that may be questionable. He is not however working as a scientist by any reasonable use of the term

 

 And He is not however qualifed in any sort of biological area at all. Even by his own admission.  

 

He is very skilled at misinterpreting facts. Quote mining and just making things up in a way that sounds convincing to the layman. Possibly his qualification as a lawyer helps in this

 

   Luskins is paid by the discovery institute who's whole perpose is to take gullible people  and exploit them for their own ends.

 

 Luskins and his ilk are genuinely evil. They earn a good living from the gullible just delibrately deceiving them

 

I am not interested in ad hominems.

 

Instead, I look forward to your considered thoughts and analysis of the information presented. As you profess to be so knowledgable on this topic, I am sure it will be no trouble for you to explain why the counter-arguments presented by Luskin and Wells in respect of speciation are wrong along with the scientific findings cited concerning the plains viscacha rat.

 

I notice that you do not provide sources or evidence to support your views in this thread. You make claims and then ask other people to complete the research you have failed to provide. This is not, in my view, a helpful contribution to discussion.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mitochondrial Eve said:

 

I am not interested in ad hominems.

 

Instead, I look forward to your considered thoughts and analysis of the information presented. As you profess to be so knowledgable on this topic, I am sure it will be no trouble for you to explain why the counter-arguments presented by Luskin and Wells in respect of speciation are wrong along with the scientific findings cited concerning the plains viscacha rat.

 

I notice that you do not provide sources or evidence to support your views in this thread. You make claims and then ask other people to complete the research you have failed to provide. This is not, in my view, a helpful contribution to discussion.

You explain why they are right. Your the proposer after all. This time in your own words with out cutting and paisting and il see if I can obligate

 

Its not an adhom attack to point out he is part of an organisation set up to exploit the gullible or surprising that you fell for it. 

 

 

Edited by Pinkiebee
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Pinkiebee said:

You explain why they are right. Your the proposer after all. This time in your own words with out cutting and paisting and il see if I can obligate

 

Its not an adhom attack to point out he is part of an organisation set up to exploit the gullible or surprising that you fell for it. 

 

 

The arguments were in the post and the links provided, but I am sure you realise that. If not, feel free to review the post again and come back to me. No cutting and pasting was involved.

 

I find it interesting that you are critcising my posts which do not conform to your view. In contrast, pro-Darwin posters have linked to videos and other papers etc without giving their analysis of the content - because of this, I have offered feedback in the absence of any input from them. And, after my feedback, there has been no further discussion as to how my comments are flawed. This suggests to me a lack of original thought and a reliance on repeating dogma. Should you really wish to persuade me and readers of this thread to your view, I suggest that you start to engage with the points made and present your research and analysis.

 

On that note, your review of the technical literature surrounding the claimed instances of speciation - primary and secondary - would be most welcome. Anything less than that from here on in will not result in any engagement from me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mitochondrial Eve said:

 

The arguments were in the post and the links provided, but I am sure you realise that. If not, feel free to review the post again and come back to me. No cutting and pasting was involved.

 

I find it interesting that you are critcising my posts which do not conform to your view. In contrast, pro-Darwin posters have linked to videos and other papers etc without giving their analysis of the content - because of this, I have offered feedback in the absence of any input from them. And, after my feedback, there has been no further discussion as to how my comments are flawed. This suggests to me a lack of original thought and a reliance on repeating dogma. Should you really wish to persuade me and readers of this thread to your view, I suggest that you start to engage with the points made and present your research and analysis.

 

On that note, your review of the technical literature surrounding the claimed instances of speciation - primary and secondary - would be most welcome. Anything less than that from here on in will not result in any engagement from me.

I've absolutely no intrest in convincing you. Non at all,or anyone else really .by the time the worms have eaten in to their brains to the extent they call anything from the discovery institute science.  Then it really is a lost cause

If they were posting I'd debate with them.  But they are not you are. Il point out major flaws. You wont know enough to respond and just say " I didnt write it . Ask them." Which I cant obviously. So a complete waste of your time and my expertise.  I've been round the block. It's like giving a donkey strawberries 

 

If you want to throw up your under! Standing il go to the trouble of trying to help ,other than that. Your on your own

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mitochondrial Eve said:

 

I am not interested in ad hominems.

 

Instead, I look forward to your considered thoughts and analysis of the information presented. As you profess to be so knowledgable on this topic, I am sure it will be no trouble for you to explain why the counter-arguments presented by Luskin and Wells in respect of speciation are wrong along with the scientific findings cited concerning the plains viscacha rat.

 

I notice that you do not provide sources or evidence to support your views in this thread. You make claims and then ask other people to complete the research you have failed to provide. This is not, in my view, a helpful contribution to discussion.

 

I would submit this article into the mix, which is directly relevant to your points on speciation, @Mitochondrial Eve:

 

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

 

The author is a postdoctoral researcher in cellular and molecular biology. She contends that:

 

Quote

"Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day."

 

It's a good read, if you have the spare time. FYI @Pinkiebee as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pinkiebee said:

Its not an adhom attack to point out he is part of an organisation set up to exploit the gullible

 

I definitely agree on the shadiness of that particular institute and anything originating from it (or those like it, of which there are many), claiming to be legitimate science. On the point of creationism and its proponents, I just went digging and found this old classic of Professor Dawkins roasting Creationist nut job Harun Yahya:

 

 

It's amazing how many creationists cite Yahya as some kind of credible source on Biology 🤣. Prime example right here: https://stolenhistory.net/threads/the-evolution-deception.744/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DarianF said:

 

I definitely agree on the shadiness of that particular institute and anything originating from it (or those like it, of which there are many), claiming to be legitimate science. On the point of creationism and its proponents, I just went digging and found this old classic of Professor Dawkins roasting Creationist nut job Harun Yahya:

 

 

It's amazing how many creationists cite Yahya as some kind of credible source on Biology 🤣. Prime example right here: https://stolenhistory.net/threads/the-evolution-deception.744/

Here is professor dave exposing cassy as a fabricator, cheat and all round %%%%

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mitochondrial Eve said:

 

The arguments were in the post and the links provided, but I am sure you realise that. If not, feel free to review the post again and come back to me. No cutting and pasting was involved.

 

I find it interesting that you are critcising my posts which do not conform to your view. In contrast, pro-Darwin posters have linked to videos and other papers etc without giving their analysis of the content - because of this, I have offered feedback in the absence of any input from them. And, after my feedback, there has been no further discussion as to how my comments are flawed. This suggests to me a lack of original thought and a reliance on repeating dogma. Should you really wish to persuade me and readers of this thread to your view, I suggest that you start to engage with the points made and present your research and analysis.

 

On that note, your review of the technical literature surrounding the claimed instances of speciation - primary and secondary - would be most welcome. Anything less than that from here on in will not result in any engagement from me.

 

Whilst I don't agree with your points, Eve, on this topic at least (other topics, I generally agree with all your stuff) I do appreciate the efforts of you coming back to keep the thread alive.

 

On the positive side, I would like to think that any casual reader / researcher going through this thread (now, or in the future) will be able to go through all the links and videos provided by both sides of the argument, and at the end of the process, have access to much more information than they otherwise would and can make a much more informed decision of their own.

 

In this respect, in my view, we have done them a favour. No one could accuse this thread of not providing a wide variety of sources for further investigations, from both perspectives of the evolutionary argument.

 

I obviously think the creationist stuff is bullshit, and you most likely think all my sources are bullshit. On this we can agree to respectfully disagree, obviously, but hopefully others find the information valuable.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mitochondrial Eve I forgot to include the following in my response to your last main speciation post (above).

 

This post discusses hybridization

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2020/10/05/more-evolutionary-theory-overturned-hype-but-as-usual-its-overrated/

 

And this post is fascinating. Coyne's commentary is valuable:

 

Two species produce viable hybrids even though they diverged 150 million years ago

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2020/07/14/two-species-produce-viable-hybrids-even-though-they-diverged-150-million-years-ago/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2022 at 9:59 PM, Mr H said:

Ok so one of my belief systems has been challenged today - the theory of evolution.

 

This is something in the past I just swallowed and never challenged.

 

But today the point came up which brought this to my attention.

 

If we evolved from Monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? And will all monkeys eventually morph themselves into humans? What do you guys make of the theory of evolution?

 

I'm new to this topic, and I wondered how science would answer this? And also what are the alternative theories out there? (except we came from God one which we all know about)

 

Stunned by stupidity

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is true that life on Earth started in the oceans. Then that means all of life on Earth are Aliens. All of the water on Earth came from space in Asteroids and whatever else. Maybe if that water ended up on another planet, We could eloved into anything.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/1/2022 at 6:02 AM, Scott Kirkland said:

If it is true that life on Earth started in the oceans. Then that means all of life on Earth are Aliens. All of the water on Earth came from space in Asteroids and whatever else. Maybe if that water ended up on another planet, We could eloved into anything.

 

It's possible that life began in deep-sea hydrothermal vents, as the conditions would be favourable; and organic matter was certainly delivered to the early earth from outer space. Carbonaceous meteorites have been found to contain extraterrestrial nucleobases, thus could have provided the necessary inventory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...