Evolution-ation

Author: Yassine
evolution
pseudoscience
fantasy
myth

Posts

Total: 130
#61
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,917
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Yassine
Natural selection has been scientific consensus for about 100 years.
- False. Rather, for about 1200 years. Natural selection is an observable fact. Evolutionary descent of varying species from a common ancestor via natural selection, however, is not.
May I see their scientific research papers/scribes or what have you?

It’s not worth it. 
- No. It's not within your ability.
Coming from someone who’s willingly ignorant 

I’m unable to give you research which supports evolution? 
You’re a real bright one aren’t you.
- Give me one argument that supports evolution, just one. I'm not asking for much.
Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions


Over 100 references. 

Doctrine is belief, while evolution is fact.
- Evolution is a doctrine to you though. If you had proof for the truth of evolutionary theory you've have already brought it. 

Evidence for evolution in response to natural selection in a contemporary human population


about 50 references. 


Ignorant people don’t offend me. Maybe if you knew more about evolution than me I’ll get offended. 
- It's tough when you don't know enough about a subject to think you know.
Ummm I guess.

I just need to understand your positions first. 
- Do you understand yours?
That evolution by natural selection is true and that you’re wilfully ignorant. 

What would be the point?
- So you'd rather waste your time dodging back & forth instead of showing proof to support your case.
Natural Selection in the Great Apes


about 100 references.

Evolution by natural selection has been a scientific consensus for about 100 years.
- One, that's false. Two, the actual postulate of the theory itself has changed at least 5 times in that period, discarding old postulates with every new one; & the latest one is about to get the boot soon as well. It's not the same theory anymore when its formulation changes, even if under the same name. Three, *most* things that have been a scientific consensus at some point are not anymore. Finally, why are you talking like a religious person, "the priests said it". If you believe there are proofs & evidence for this, why can't you use you own words to prove it instead of "they said so".
You’re very bipolar in your replies. You put emphasis on the importance of postulates and then you say they don’t matter when it comes to science.
You tell me to give proofs and evidence in my own words while also telling me to give you research that supports my positions. 

Make up your mind. 

- Evolutionary theory is unverified, predicts nothing & is has no accuracy.
Can you give me a coherent explanation? 

“Maybe in 500 years we'll have a quantum theory of biology.“ 
That’s why. These ideas must be too big for me. Please explain what you mean. 
- Our understanding of biology stems from our understanding of chemistry, which stems from our understanding of physics, which stems from our understanding of quantum theory.
No, our understanding doesn’t. They may inform each other to one degree or another. But our understanding of everything else doesn’t derive from our understanding of quantum mechanics if that’s what you’re referring to.
- It strictly does. You don't know what I'm talking about that's why you don't understand me. Go ask a chemist. You can not have Molecular Biology without Chemistry. You can not have Chemistry without Quantum Physics. Else, these disciplines will shrink back to 19th century level. This applies to engineering as well, you can not have Material Science or Computer Science... without Quantum Physics.
You don’t need to be a quantum physicist to be a chemist. Seriously!..
- Um...? Chemistry rests wholly on a Physics foundation & builds up on results from quantum theory, particle physics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics...etc.
Which various chemists will know to one degree or another. 
- Case in point.
You had no case. It isn’t a strict rule for chemists to understand quantum physics. 
- No. But the field of Chemistry rests on Quantum foundations.
Alright so you’ve moved from the profession(s) of chemistry to the field of chemistry in general.
- You have it backwards. I said: "Our understanding of biology stems from our understanding of chemistry, which stems from our understanding of physics, which stems from our understanding of quantum theory." to which you responded: "No, our understanding doesn’t."... Case in point.
And I said: “No, our understanding doesn’t. They may inform each other to one degree or another. But our understanding of everything else doesn’t derive from our understanding of quantum mechanics if that’s what you’re referring to.”

Which you replied: “it strictly does.”

It’s like saying general relativity is strictly derived from quantum theory. Do you understand the big picture?

It gave us a true understanding of the world and a framework which lets us fight diseases. 
- That's false. Show me one single way or one single example Evolution helps us fight diseases, such that without it we wouldn't have been able to. The floor is yours.
Virus mutation and the prevalence during various periods of Earth’s climate. 

How do they do it?
- Different species have different DNAs. DNA sequencing is used to determine the base pairs of the genome. Genome size can vary a lot between species, up to 200 times the size of the human genome (3 billion). The genome is sequenced into chapters, sentences & words, to determine genes, particularly protein genes (from coding DNA). Each gene can be copied to create various types of proteins responsible for different functions in the cell. The way DNA tests work is they check for snips (SNP) in the DNA sequence, which are known variants, to determine a person's hereditary traits. These variants, however, occupy a very tiny part of DNA (the order of 0.01%), the rest is identical. It's expected to see 1/2 of DNA from each parent, so when the tested DNA (of that 0.01%) alines with the reference sample, they know it's a match. The further back you go in lineage, the more recombinations are expected (within that 0.01%).

- This is impossible to do with different species, for they have different DNA. After DNA sequencing, the comparison of DNA from a human & another species works by juxtaposing the two together, contrasting the similar parts & discarding the rest. Between a human & a chimp for, for instance, 30% of the DNA are incomparable. Then comes the phase of comparing genes, especially protein coding genes, to figure out the difference in functionality between a human cell & another species's. 
“Different species have different DNAs.” Everyone/creature has a unique genome which expresses itself differently. 

Most of this stuff is just truism. Can you give some context?


What do you mean?
- Let's debate this & you can show everyone I'm wrong.
There’s nothing to debate. 

What is the real science? 
- Not evolutionary mythology.
Good one.


- Showing that the postulate of the Evolutionary Theory is actually scientific. In fact, let's have a debate about
The postulate of any scientific theory is not science on its own. What other ones do you have?
- Wut...?! Is that a concession I'm seeing?
Maybe from your hallucinatory strawman. 
Topic's author
#62
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
Just out of curiosity, what issue would you take with evolution being compatible with creationism?
- Regardless of the truth of Creationism, Evolution is nonsense. I have no doctrinal issue with Evolution as a concept, I have a rational issue with Evolution as a farcical theory. It's a bogus theory which relies on infinite monkey fallacy, give it enough time & every possible thing will happen; which makes it the most god-of-the-gaps theory ever imagined. If we don't know how, evolution did it.

Meaning evolution as a creative procession of events of evolving things into existence through that process? your argument may be the same perhaps but I was interested what you think about evolution being presented not as a natural process but a creative process.
- You mean Theistic Evolution? I see the notion as incoherent & unattainable. One: Creationism, as I understand it, undermines the creative omnipotence of God. God creates all things, that He brings into existence from non-existence. Life popping out in nature with form & function is not an act of creation. To claim that it is is squaring the circle. You can not bring into being things which essentially are. Two: Theistic Evolution does not sprout in a vacuum, it entails a doctrinal background. Depending on one's faith, the concept can be more or less untenable. It's harder for a Christian to reconcile the Biblical narrative with the evolutionary theory, in terms of life evolution, origin of man & age of the earth. It's not an issue for a Hindu. For a Muslim, the only contention would be the first man. Three: the idea behind the evolutionary narrative is not to seek & find truth about Life. It's rather to provide a mythological justification for the materialist, the naturist & the atheist. Anyone who knows anything about the history of this idea knows this is true. In short, Theist Evolution is a flawed idea at best.

Since we know nothing is poofed into existence, God must have a process to take nothing but energy and element and create form out of those materials. If you shun the idea that God uses evolution to generate species on earth, how do you propose that God manifests creatures into existence including the physical body we call humanoid to become what they are?
- This is a false dilemma. Because we don't have alternative explanations, therefore evolutionary theory is true! The simple answer is we don't know. In fact, we can't know. To understand transformation in matter, one must understand its parts & its whole. Without our understanding of electrons' & photons' behavior, we can never know what happens in chemical reactions & why it happens, no matter how many theories we cook up. Analogically, to understand Life, one must understand its parts & its whole. We do not yet understand the basic building blocks of Life, such as amino acids & lipids & proteins. We do not yet know how they do what they do & why they do it. Any exercise of understanding Life without this knowledge is effectively futile.

Evolution is typically assumed to be a purely materialistic process I'm aware of that....and that the study of evolution has been proposed by atheistic doofuses as a means to show there's no need for a God but honestly, I always associate intelligent processes with a Creator, hence I have no real objection with evolution as a means to create something from nothing, or form from the formless. We clearly see there is a succession of processes that are involved to manifest the existence of our universe, this would indicate the same is true for species to exist.
- First of all, God of the gaps is an absurd notion. That is, if we don't understand it, then God did it. As if, if we do understand it, then God didn't do it. God's power is absolute; our understanding of something does not make God contingent on it. That's absurd. Second of all, we actually have proper solid theories about the development of our universe, which stems from our deep understanding of its parts (particles) & its whole (spacetime), without which we will never be able to achieve that. This is simply not the case for Life. Evolution is to Life what Astrology is to the Cosmos, bogus hodgepodge born from a conspiratorial perception of biodiversity where they see connections where there are none, for deep lack of sufficient knowledge. Third of all, Creator this & that has got nothing to with understanding the world. The very act of looking for explanations of natural phenomenon assumes there is always an explanation to find, thus an ultimate explanation. We can not put God in the process, as if our faith diminishes otherwise. God is, God created. We just do our part in attempting to understand His creation.

Then again, I'm not a Biblical literalist so the creation story in Genesis is not what I consider a literal event. Just know I'm not presenting this as an argument to your position, I'm just willing to hear what you have to say on the matter.
- My position is very simple: the evolutionary narrative is a mythological literary story with no basis in reality, made to look like a scientific theory with a consistent amount of lies & an abundant amount of fanaticism. I truly looked into this theory with sincerity to believe in it, but it ended up becoming the biggest joke I seen in my life, it's unbelievable how nonsensical it is. Bottom line, evolutionary theory makes big claims, yet it is totes unverified, predicts a duck, with unheard-of accuracy -literally. It's the biggest begging the question plot ever conceived by man. 





#63
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,917
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Yassine
#64
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,461
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Yassine
Material evolution is ongoing and progress is self demonstrable.

The point of material evolution, if there is a point, can only be guessed at.


People tend to get bogged down in Darwinism and overlook the bigger picture....Just as people tend to get bogged down in religion and avoid the bigger picture.

Perhaps getting bogged down is necessary.


Creation and and an evolutionary sequence, has dictated that  both religion and science are necessary to the process of understanding and development.

I would refer to this as a GOD principle.


My guess is that it's all happened before.

And if everything goes as it should, then it will all happen again.


Worship not actually required....But everything plays it's part.....Maybe.
#65
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,015
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
If evolution isn't scientific fact, what's the alternative explanation for the variants over time of the Covid 19 virus? Because fast reproduction, short life cycle bacteria copying itself over and over, with some slight change every time, until one such change becomes beneficial to reproduction and survival, then that change becomes dominant, seems like exactly how science says evolution works. 
#66
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Yassine
Dude - some of the claims you made were literally contrdicted by the data in the source. Furthermore, I've yet to see a single piece of evidence to support your conjecture... which, thus far, is all I see - conjecture and a dude who doesn't understand what a species is. 
Topic's author
#67
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@ludofl3x

If evolution isn't scientific fact, what's the alternative explanation for the variants over time of the Covid 19 virus?
- First of all, that's a false dilemma. The lack of alternative explanation does not make evolution a good explanation! Second of all, viruses are literally the least understood organisms in biology. Nobody knows what they do & why they do it. If they did, there won't be a Covid19. Third of all, they love to stick their evolutionary mythology into everything. The spike protein in Covid19 is derived from a 3800-base long gene. That's 2 to the power of 3800 possible mutations (or 10 to the power of 968). You think these are random mutations?! Far more complex things happen constantly in every cell in every organism. Viruses are the worst possible example to give for evolution, for they are not even self-sustainable. Finally, what does any of this have to do with the theory of evolution anyways?! Absolutely nothing. It explains absolutely nothing of significance. If you've ever taken a biology class, you would know that all mutations in coding-DNA are bad, for they crash the function of proteins.

Because fast reproduction, short life cycle bacteria copying itself over and over, with some slight change every time, until one such change becomes beneficial to reproduction and survival, then that change becomes dominant,
- Bacteria =/= virus. Viruses are parasitic organisms, they are not self-sustainable. As to your fantastic conjecture, cyanobacteria has been going on since 3.5 billion years ago, that's 120 trillion generations, & they are still cyanobacteria. You gotta let go of the infinite monkey myth, that with enough time anything that could happen will happen. That's not reality. Conflating observable changes in hereditary prominence & genetic variance with the theory of evolution is a even bigger fallacy.

seems like exactly how science says evolution works.
- Just like everything else in this evolutionary failed narrative, this too is a fallacy. They use 'evolution' to mean anything & everything that moves or changes. That's an equivocation fallacy. Evolution as intended is the evolutionary theory that postulates that different species originate from a common ancestor via undirected processes, such as natural selection & random mutations. Literally nothing that has ever been observed fit this postulate. Calling any hereditary change or genetic variation or population shift 'evolution' is equivocation nonsense.
Topic's author
#68
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
Dude - some of the claims you made were literally contrdicted by the data in the source.
-  Dude! One: that's not data, that's narrative. There is a difference. Two: I specifically said they are lying, no sh*t they contradict what I said, cz dey lyin! Three: your unfamiliarity with the literature is not justification to call me a liar. If you had bothered to check, you would've realized what I said to be true. For example: "A new species is one in which the individuals cannot mate and produce viable descendants with individuals of a preexisting species.""a particularly compelling example of speciation involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands." < This is a literal lie. Those species of finches can, as a matter fo fact, inter-mate.

Furthermore, I've yet to see a single piece of evidence to support your conjecture... which, thus far, is all I see - conjecture
- One: I'm not the one with the theory to be asked for evidence! I'm the one asking for it. Two: I've already laid down my argument, if you have a problem with it, by all means. Three: the evolutionary narrative is the most elaborate conjecture ever conceived by Man. You're having a hard time proving otherwise. Use your words to establish your evidence, instead of sending me links.

and a dude who doesn't understand what a species is. 
- Do tell, what are species? Or do you mean this definition that you posted: "A new species is one in which the individuals cannot mate and produce viable descendants with individuals of a preexisting species."

Topic's author
#69
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Reece101
May I see their scientific research papers/scribes or what have you?

Coming from someone who’s willingly ignorant
- Confessions!

Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions

Over 100 references. 
- Much of that was pure narrative, nothing scientific. Use your words & make your case. "Here is a link, therefore it's true" is not a valid argument.

Evidence for evolution in response to natural selection in a contemporary human population


about 50 references. 
- Equivocation fallacy. Conflating the actual theory of evolution with every change there is renders it wholly empty vacant. The Evolutionary Theory relates to origins of species through random mutations & arbitrary natural selection. Biological changes in a population is *not* Evolution. This proves further your inability to provide evidence for your mythology; you have to resort to tricks like this.

That evolution by natural selection is true and that you’re wilfully ignorant.
- Wild imagination you got there. 

Natural Selection in the Great Apes


about 100 references.
- Same sh*t as before. This is *not* Evolution. All apes are, in fact, inter-fertile. They are all, in effect, the same species, under the strictest definition of species. The same way all humans are inter-fertile.

- One, that's false. Two, the actual postulate of the theory itself has changed at least 5 times in that period, discarding old postulates with every new one; & the latest one is about to get the boot soon as well. It's not the same theory anymore when its formulation changes, even if under the same name. Three, *most* things that have been a scientific consensus at some point are not anymore. Finally, why are you talking like a religious person, "the priests said it". If you believe there are proofs & evidence for this, why can't you use you own words to prove it instead of "they said so".
You’re very bipolar in your replies. You put emphasis on the importance of postulates and then you say they don’t matter when it comes to science.
- . A postulate is the claim of a scientific theory, which may prove to be more or less accurate, or outright false. In the aforementioned case, all previous postulates of natural selection, starting from survival of the fittest, through selection from adaptive traits, to gene selection theory, have been discarded, after having been professed to be the truth, to be replace by gene selection through reproductive potency. 

You tell me to give proofs and evidence in my own words while also telling me to give you research that supports my positions.
- Links =/= arguments. You can not have a debate with someone with a bunch of links. Research is supportive source to your argument.

Make up your mind. 
- The evolutionationists are confusing you.

Can you give me a coherent explanation? 
- The theory of Evolution, which postulates the following: "Life emerged from spontaneous & compounded chemical reactions, to form a self-sustaining & self-reproducing single-cell organism, capable of gradual changes in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms of increasing complexity, giving rise to all biodiversity on Earth through descent of varying species from a common ancestor via undirected mechanisms, such as natural selection, random mutations, genetic drift, migration & gene flow".  Is:
1. Unverified: it has never been tested to be true or not. All of its applications are ad hoc interpretations after the fact, based on circular reasoning & infinite monkey fallacies.
2. Unpredictive: does not predict a single thing whatsoever. It's all conjecture after the fact.
3. Non-accurate: it's too vague & empty to be subject to any measure of accuracy. It's a hallow nimbus. Basically, Evolution is to Life, what Astrology is the Cosmos. 

And I said: “No, our understanding doesn’t. They may inform each other to one degree or another. But our understanding of everything else doesn’t derive from our understanding of quantum mechanics if that’s what you’re referring to.”
Which you replied: “it strictly does.”
It’s like saying general relativity is strictly derived from quantum theory. Do you understand the big picture?
- False. Strictly speaking, our understanding of Chemistry stems from our understanding of Quantum Theory, without which we will effectively be back to 19th century Chemistry. Quantum Theory gives us an understanding of the behavior of electrons & photons, which allows us a deeper understanding of interactions between atoms. Without this understanding, modern Chemistry is naught. Without knowing what an electron does & why it does what it does, our understanding of chemical reactions & organic synthesis & materials will be effectively primitive.

Virus mutation and the prevalence during various periods of Earth’s climate. 
- What does this have to do with Evolution? Which part of this is useful because of Evolution? 

“Different species have different DNAs.” Everyone/creature has a unique genome which expresses itself differently. 
Most of this stuff is just truism. Can you give some context?
- You thought they did DNA tests for monkeys to check for ancestry, I explained that's not the case. 

There’s nothing to debate. 
- You're conceding that the evolutionary theory is literature?

- Showing that the postulate of the Evolutionary Theory is actually scientific. In fact, let's have a debate about
The postulate of any scientific theory is not science on its own. What other ones do you have?
- Wut...?! Is that a concession I'm seeing?
Maybe from your hallucinatory strawman. 
- If not a concession, then a debate,










#70
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Yassine
No - you've made claims... and yes - it is data - if you bothered to read any of the studies you'd know that the entire fossil record IS THE DATA. Like, an entire archive. You have a narrative, the difference is that you have no evidence - if all you're willing to do is talk bullshit, then I'm not gonna bother - cuz' you're either lying or so convinced of your own position your ignorant to anything opposing your worldview. 

Your "arguments" are just.. well not true. That's about it. 
Topic's author
#71
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
No - you've made claims... and yes - it is data - if you bothered to read any of the studies you'd know that the entire fossil record IS THE DATA. Like, an entire archive.
- Fossil record =/= Evolution. Lol!

You have a narrative, the difference is that you have no evidence - if all you're willing to do is talk bullshit, then I'm not gonna bother - cuz' you're either lying or so convinced of your own position your ignorant to anything opposing your worldview. 
- Pretty confident! How about we actually debate this? You can then prove my lies & show evolution is true.

Your "arguments" are just.. well not true. That's about it. 
- Wow! Such a powerful refutation. Lmao! 
Topic's author
#72
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Material evolution is ongoing and progress is self demonstrable.

The point of material evolution, if there is a point, can only be guessed at.


People tend to get bogged down in Darwinism and overlook the bigger picture....Just as people tend to get bogged down in religion and avoid the bigger picture.

Perhaps getting bogged down is necessary.


Creation and and an evolutionary sequence, has dictated that  both religion and science are necessary to the process of understanding and development.

I would refer to this as a GOD principle.

My guess is that it's all happened before.

And if everything goes as it should, then it will all happen again.

Worship not actually required....But everything plays it's part.....Maybe.
- I'm not exactly sure which side of the argument you are in?

#73
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,917
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Yassine
The hyperlinks don’t work. They just send me back to the main page. Although some information rings a bell such as Aristotle having developed evolutionary ideas. Didn’t know Muslim scholars adopted/adapted it from him hundreds of years after though.

I actually wanted direct translations from them. 

Coming from someone who’s wilfully ignorant
- Confessions!
I’m not even sure you’ve read your own links.


Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions

Over 100 references. 
- Much of that was pure narrative, nothing scientific. Use your words & make your case. "Here is a link, therefore it's true" is not a valid argument.
You did the same. Again, what’s the point of giving each other links?

Evidence for evolution in response to natural selection in a contemporary human population


about 50 references. 
- Equivocation fallacy. Conflating the actual theory of evolution with every change there is renders it wholly empty vacant. The Evolutionary Theory relates to origins of species through random mutations & arbitrary natural selection. Biological changes in a population is *not* Evolution. This proves further your inability to provide evidence for your mythology; you have to resort to tricks like this.
Did you only read the title? Why should I bother to respond?


That evolution by natural selection is true and that you’re wilfully ignorant.
- Wild imagination you got there. 

Natural Selection in the Great Apes


about 100 references.
- Same sh*t as before. This is *not* Evolution. All apes are, in fact, inter-fertile. They are all, in effect, the same species, under the strictest definition of species. The same way all humans are inter-fertile.
Why does it feel like you’re only reading the titles?

You’re saying all apes are the same species so they can all create hybrids with another? What you’re saying is blatantly wrong on so many levels. How closely related organisms are to one another doesn’t always translate to being interfertile. Take hares and rabbits as a classic example.  

Here’s a link to an explanation of the taxonomical differences between species and genus: 


- One, that's false. Two, the actual postulate of the theory itself has changed at least 5 times in that period, discarding old postulates with every new one; & the latest one is about to get the boot soon as well. It's not the same theory anymore when its formulation changes, even if under the same name. Three, *most* things that have been a scientific consensus at some point are not anymore. Finally, why are you talking like a religious person, "the priests said it". If you believe there are proofs & evidence for this, why can't you use you own words to prove it instead of "they said so".
You’re very bipolar in your replies. You put emphasis on the importance of postulates and then you say they don’t matter when it comes to science.
- . A postulate is the claim of a scientific theory, which may prove to be more or less accurate, or outright false. In the aforementioned case, all previous postulates of natural selection, starting from survival of the fittest, through selection from adaptive traits, to gene selection theory, have been discarded, after having been professed to be the truth, to be replace by gene selection through reproductive potency. 
“gene selection through reproductive potency” is essentially describing what gene selection theory is:




You tell me to give proofs and evidence in my own words while also telling me to give you research that supports my positions.
- Links =/= arguments. You can not have a debate with someone with a bunch of links. Research is supportive source to your argument.
You don’t even click on the links and read them. I don’t even think you read your own. There’s no point to it other than it being a facade. 

Make up your mind. 
- The evolutionationists are confusing you.
Well I am starting to feel a headache coming on.

Can you give me a coherent explanation? 
- The theory of Evolution, which postulates the following: "Life emerged from spontaneous & compounded chemical reactions, to form a self-sustaining & self-reproducing single-cell organism, capable of gradual changes in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms of increasing complexity, giving rise to all biodiversity on Earth through descent of varying species from a common ancestor via undirected mechanisms, such as natural selection, random mutations, genetic drift, migration & gene flow".  Is:
1. Unverified: it has never been tested to be true or not. All of its applications are ad hoc interpretations after the fact, based on circular reasoning & infinite monkey fallacies.
2. Unpredictive: does not predict a single thing whatsoever. It's all conjecture after the fact.
3. Non-accurate: it's too vague & empty to be subject to any measure of accuracy. It's a hallow nimbus. Basically, Evolution is to Life, what Astrology is the Cosmos. 
There are many hypotheses to the origins of life. It does not mean the theory of evolution is wrong.

You can pretty much say the same thing about star and planet formations. That gas and dust spontaneously compounds/collapses and creates chemical reactions, etc. But do you have any conjecture for them? Anyway, where are you getting that quote from?

- You have it backwards. I said: "Our understanding of biology stems from our understanding of chemistry, which stems from our understanding of physics, which stems from our understanding of quantum theory." to which you responded: "No, our understanding doesn’t."... Case in point.
And I said: “No, our understanding doesn’t. They may inform each other to one degree or another. But our understanding of everything else doesn’t derive from our understanding of quantum mechanics if that’s what you’re referring to.”
Which you replied: “it strictly does.”
It’s like saying general relativity is strictly derived from quantum theory. Do you understand the big picture?
- False. Strictly speaking, our understanding of Chemistry stems from our understanding of Quantum Theory, without which we will effectively be back to 19th century Chemistry. Quantum Theory gives us an understanding of the behavior of electrons & photons, which allows us a deeper understanding of interactions between atoms. Without this understanding, modern Chemistry is naught. Without knowing what an electron does & why it does what it does, our understanding of chemical reactions & organic synthesis & materials will be effectively primitive.
I’ll put it simple for you. Knowing how to drive a car doesn’t require you to know how an engine works. But if your car breaks down, maybe it will inform you.
For there to be perfect scientific theory, there will have to be a theory of everything. Quantum Theory as we know it doesn’t come close.

Virus mutation and the prevalence during various periods of Earth’s climate. 
- What does this have to do with Evolution? Which part of this is useful because of Evolution? 
Which part of knowing viruses mutate is useful because of evolution? 

It’s like asking, ‘what’s useful about planets and stars forming because of gravity?’
 
“Different species have different DNAs.” Everyone/creature has a unique genome which expresses itself differently. 
Most of this stuff is just truism. Can you give some context?
- You thought they did DNA tests for monkeys to check for ancestry, I explained that's not the case. 
No, I was talking about cross-species sequencing. 
 
There’s nothing to debate. 
- You're conceding that the evolutionary theory is literature?

- Showing that the postulate of the Evolutionary Theory is actually scientific. In fact, let's have a debate about
The postulate of any scientific theory is not science on its own. What other ones do you have?
- Wut...?! Is that a concession I'm seeing?
Maybe from your hallucinatory strawman. 
- If not a concession, then a debate,
Why bother?
#74
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,461
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Yassine
I'm in both camps.

I believe nothing, but run with the idea of creation and subsequent evolution, to and endpoint, whereby a GOD principle is achieved and the universal sequence of events is re-initiated.

So.....Creation - Evolution - God Principle is achieved - Universal Decline - Re-initiation of the sequence.


And 2000 year old tales are just that, but nonetheless propose a  GOD principle.... As do all creation hypotheses, unsurprisingly.


Q. Did GOD create us, or do we create GOD?

A. Both.




#75
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,360
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@ludofl3x
If evolution isn't scientific fact, what's the alternative explanation for the variants over time of the Covid 19 virus?
Three kinds of evolution are possible:

1} complex-to-simple, and is the easiest to occur and  witness via inbreeding,

2} lateral, and my be common to viri and bacteria etc i.e. simple oranisms,

3} simple-to-complex, is the most frustrating approach --we find indirect evidence of such with fossil record becomin more complex over time, but how that occurs, is still under consideration---   and there is good book on this called 'The Touch Stone of Life'. https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-19-511828-5

..."By merging principles of biology and physics, Loewenstein explains the workings of cell biology and biochemistry. Information exchange is shown to be responsible for processes as diverse as cellular reproduction, hormonal action, forms of cancerous growth and--or so the author claims--human consciousness. Though Loewenstein states he has written a book for the scientist and nonspecialist alike, he doesn't ever quite settle in to a single audience."....

#76
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Yassine
I don't debate here anymore - not enough time - I welcome you to check out my: "https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6192-i-m-going-on-hiatus" which I posted a month ago. 

Furthermore, you're right the fossil record itself isn't evolution - it is the data which provides the evidence for evolution - good specification there huh? And I already provided evidence, you rejected them with hand-waving, not a single sourced point, not a single credible source - just conjecture. Maybe when you show more than conjecture I'll take you seriously, until then have fun being a quack. Again, you're bites at my pride do nothing. 

#77
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,015
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Yassine
Okay, so that's a lot of hand waving, and I already know you don't think evolution is sound. My question is what's the BETTER explanation for it. You didn't answer. If evolution is false, what's the explanation with observable evidence, a condition you demand of evolutionary theory, that explains the mutation and propagation of the various variants of the Covid 19 virus? 
#78
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret
@Yassin



.
!!!  MISSING IN ACTION. !!!

Has any member seen the RUNAWAY from debate YASSINE hiding around DEBATEART, where he has yet to address my post to him within this thread located here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6327-evolution-ation?page=3&post_number=54

YASSINE has literally RAN AWAY AGAIN for the 9th time from discussing his copy-cat and disgusting Islamic faith, for obvious reasons as we all know, therefore like TRADESECRET and the ever so Bible stupid FAUXLAW, he has disappeared like these ignorant Bible fools always do when I discuss Christianity with them and subsequent to Bible Slapping them Silly!®

.


Topic's author
#79
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Reece101
The hyperlinks don’t work.
- That's strange, I checked, it works fine. Click on download PDF, it's free access. If not, try copying the DOI to sci-hub.

They just send me back to the main page. Although some information rings a bell such as Aristotle having developed evolutionary ideas. Didn’t know Muslim scholars adopted/adapted it from him hundreds of years after though.
- No. Aristotles' ideas were primitive & dumb, & have to do with Greek mythologies about fire & water & that stuff. The Mu'tazilites approach to Life was naturalistic, as they were themselves naturalists (although Muslim believers), hence their explanations of processes such as: natural selection, adaptive traits, survival of the fittest, camouflage, prey & predator, & among some evolution by increasing complexity. 

I actually wanted direct translations from them. 
- I don't have access to any translated material, though the paper I linked does quote from these sources. I have a copy of al-Jahiz' book al-Hayawan (The Animal) in an 8-volumes set, but it's in Arabic.

I’m not even sure you’ve read your own links.
- You're projecting.

You did the same. Again, what’s the point of giving each other links?
- False. I shared an information, you asked for a source. I didn't ask for links, I've read enough. I asked for an argument, a proof, a piece evidence, anything which proves Evolution. How hard can it be?

Did you only read the title? Why should I bother to respond?
- You're projecting again. I know exactly what the study is about, it's nothing new. Natural selection within a population has nothing to do with the theory of Evolution. The claim of the evolutionary theory goes far beyond just natural selection. "natural selection happens, therefore evolution happens" is a composition fallacy. Seriously, how hard can this be?!

Why does it feel like you’re only reading the titles?
- Because you're projecting.

You’re saying all apes are the same species so they can all create hybrids with another? What you’re saying is blatantly wrong on so many levels.
- False. If you define a distinct species as a taxon whose individuals cannot interbreed with existing species -which is the actual definition of speciation-, then all apes are, by definition, the same species, for they can all interbreed. All apes have the same DNA, thus their offspring -being half of each parental DNA, is the same DNA. 

How closely related organisms are to one another doesn’t always translate to being interfertile. Take hares and rabbits as a classic example.  
- That's begging the question. I don't adhere to the evolutionary mythology, "closely related" means nothing to me. Zeus makes more sense than this nonsense. You have the same DNA as your parents reshuffled, their parents too, & theirs, ad infinitum. It's always the same human DNA (genome). A chimpanzee's DNA is ceded to their offspring reshuffled, & theirs, ad infinitum. A human genome shares 20% of the chimp's genes. At one point has this 80% extra gene (2.4 billion base pairs) suddenly appear in the DNA?!  They really take people for cretin imbeciles. You have to establish the truth of the theory first, before taking it for granted. Regardless, none of this doesn't change the fact that apes are inter-fertile. 

Here’s a link to an explanation of the taxonomical differences between species and genus: 
- This is BS. "Two organisms from the same genus may produce fertile offsprings. But two organisms from two different genera cannot produce offsprings that are capable of reproduction. " is factually false, there is interbreeding on the order level, & the class level, let alone on the genera level -such as the case for moths & butterflies. You shocked? Yeah, there is actually no objective definition for any taxon. As the evolutionary biologist (aka mythologist) Prof Roger Butlin said: "We tend not to argue about what defines a species anymore, because that doesn't get you anywhere". Isn't that convenient.

- No. I'm tired of explaining every other thing. For something you so wholeheartedly defend you don't seem to know a lot about. The very article you linked is case enough.
 
You don’t even click on the links and read them. I don’t even think you read your own. There’s no point to it other than it being a facade.
- What makes you YOU believe the evolutionary theory is undeniable fact? Show me THAT. 

Well I am starting to feel a headache coming on.
- Trying to wrap your hand around this nonsense.

There are many hypotheses to the origins of life. It does not mean the theory of evolution is wrong.
- Then we will go through everyone of these hypotheses & check. Give me your best. Regardless of the truth of evolution, the theory of evolution is still unscientific. There is a non-zero possibility that organisms morphed ones into others ("evolved" if you will) through an unknown processes. The theory of evolution stays forever nonetheless unscientific, ad hoc after the fact mythology.

You can pretty much say the same thing about star and planet formations. That gas and dust spontaneously compounds/collapses and creates chemical reactions, etc. But do you have any conjecture for them?
- My bachelor essay was on a similar topic. About how gravitation induces revolution of matter around a massive core, which compresses under gravitation force & transforms into heat, which -by energy conservation principals- forms spheroids. You can do all this with maths, to very accurate degrees. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is in its entirety ad hoc after the fact stories. 

Anyway, where are you getting that quote from?
- What quote?

I’ll put it simple for you. Knowing how to drive a car doesn’t require you to know how an engine works. But if your car breaks down, maybe it will inform you.
- That's a pharmacist. & besides the point.

Which part of knowing viruses mutate is useful because of evolution?
- Again, what does this have to do with the theory of evolution?! 

It’s like asking, ‘what’s useful about planets and stars forming because of gravity?’
- No it is not. One is an observable fact, the other is an imaginative mythology. Further, our understanding of planet formation stems from our understanding of gravitation. Our understanding of virus variants & similarities stems naught from evolutionary narratives. On the contrary, the evolutionary narrative can only hamper such understanding. 
 
Why bother?
- Because you know your position is untenable.


Topic's author
#80
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Okay, so that's a lot of hand waving, and I already know you don't think evolution is sound. My question is what's the BETTER explanation for it. You didn't answer.
- The answer is, we don't know. There is no good explanation for Life thus far, & not anytime soon, but the evolutionary explanation is obscenely dreadful. The amount of stupidity this theory expounds can only be trumped by its extraordinary imaginativeness. In truth, we are not yet capable of understanding Life, pretending otherwise is acting the impossible. We do not even understand the building blocks of Life -amino acids, lipids, & proteins-, what they do, & how they do it, & why do they do what they do. Until we gain insight thereof, any exercise in understanding Life is treading in fantasy. In all likelihood, we need to substantially upgrade our fundamental understanding of the universe, go beyond a quantum & relativist worldview, to maybe gain insight into Life. 

If evolution is false, what's the explanation with observable evidence, a condition you demand of evolutionary theory, that explains the mutation and propagation of the various variants of the Covid 19 virus? 
- Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with variants in Covid19, or any other virus. In fact, a virus is a good example of anti-evolution! A virus is not self-sufficient, it cannot exist without a cell. Evolution on a virus is -literally & conceptually- a non-starter. Indeed, the barrage of evolutionary vomit daubed on everything that moves unavoidably confuses people as to the prominence of this mythology. Particularly, the Evolutionary Theory rests wholly on the premise of self-sustainable self-reproducing cells capable of darwinian evolution (descent of new species from common ancestor via natural selection & random mutations). <= If you don't see this, then it is not evolution.

Topic's author
#81
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
I don't debate here anymore - not enough time - I welcome you to check out my: "https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6192-i-m-going-on-hiatus" which I posted a month ago. 
- The option is always there. Good luck.

Furthermore, you're right the fossil record itself isn't evolution - it is the data which provides the evidence for evolution - good specification there huh? And I already provided evidence, you rejected them with hand-waving, not a single sourced point, not a single credible source - just conjecture.
- False. You have not provided any evidence. Your contentions are lies & logical fallacies, as an appeal to possibility: "it is possible that evolution happened, therefore it happened", as anti-non-contradiction : "new species of finches can not interbreed with other finches, therefore they interbreed not as species", as infinite monkey fallacy, "whatever it is, therefore it is -given enough time & enough tries"...etc. Shameless!

Maybe when you show more than conjecture I'll take you seriously, until then have fun being a quack. Again, you're bites at my pride do nothing. 
- Lmao! I gotta admit, it's exhilarating seeing evoluthology defenders utterly unable to defend that they resort to these inglorious tactics. 
Topic's author
#82
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm in both camps.

I believe nothing, but run with the idea of creation and subsequent evolution, to and endpoint, whereby a GOD principle is achieved and the universal sequence of events is re-initiated.
So.....Creation - Evolution - God Principle is achieved - Universal Decline - Re-initiation of the sequence.

And 2000 year old tales are just that, but nonetheless propose a  GOD principle.... As do all creation hypotheses, unsurprisingly.
- Any of this about evolutionation?

Q. Did GOD create us, or do we create GOD?
- Contradiction?

A. Both.
- Circular?

#83
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,368
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I am not MIA. 

I am about at least once a week. As I said in another topic, one question at a time on a single post. See if you are able to understand. 
#84
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Yassine
um... no? We know that finches developed long enough to eventually gain features which best suited their environment - natural selection - which is a mechanism that simply describes how creatures either adapt to their environment or die. Simple as that - evolution is the long term process of that - no unlimited time shit - your making strawmen. 

Furthermore, you simply handwaved my evidence away with no actual evidence - until you bring an ounce of evidence I consider you a conspiracy theorist - all you have to do to change my mind is actually present evidence for your conclusion. 
#85
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,461
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Yassine
Did GOD create us or did we create GOD.

Only contradictory if you don't bother to think about it.



Both.

Means both.



As I stated elsewhere.

We're all limited by the limited data we have available.
#86
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,362
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I am about at least once a week. 

It is nice that you can afford us  one single minute of your time considering your so, so heavy work load, on top of family and the farm.  I am sure it is appreciated and welcomed.... by some, Reverend.
#87
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,917
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Yassine
They just send me back to the main page. Although some information rings a bell such as Aristotle having developed evolutionary ideas. Didn’t know Muslim scholars adopted/adapted it from him hundreds of years after though.
- No. Aristotles' ideas were primitive & dumb, & have to do with Greek mythologies about fire & water & that stuff. The Mu'tazilites approach to Life was naturalistic, as they were themselves naturalists (although Muslim believers), hence their explanations of processes such as: natural selection, adaptive traits, survival of the fittest, camouflage, prey & predator, & among some evolution by increasing complexity. 
Yet your link did state the scholars adopted the basic idea of evolution from Aristotle, correct? You have to admit this was more than 1000 years after Aristotle’s time.

I’m not even sure you’ve read your own links.
- You're projecting.
First you bring up Dunning-Kruger and now you bring up psychological projection. 
If you’re going to use pop-psychology, at least read up on them. 

- Much of that was pure narrative, nothing scientific. Use your words & make your case. "Here is a link, therefore it's true" is not a valid argument.
You did the same. Again, what’s the point of giving each other links?
- False. I shared an information, you asked for a source. I didn't ask for links, I've read enough. I asked for an argument, a proof, a piece evidence, anything which proves Evolution. How hard can it be?
And I shared information too, the same as you. 

Did you only read the title? Why should I bother to respond?
- You're projecting again. I know exactly what the study is about, it's nothing new. Natural selection within a population has nothing to do with the theory of Evolution. The claim of the evolutionary theory goes far beyond just natural selection. "natural selection happens, therefore evolution happens" is a composition fallacy. Seriously, how hard can this be?!
You don’t know what psychological projection is. If you knew, you would know that’s obviously not the case.

Are you a Young Earth Creationist? If you agree natural selection occurs, why do you have a problem with speciation? Depending on the organism, let’s say 100,000 generations, you think they’ll still be the same species from where their ancestors started?

Why does it feel like you’re only reading the titles?
- Because you're projecting.
Although I’ve showed that’s not the case and have no clue what projection is. 

You’re saying all apes are the same species so they can all create hybrids with another? What you’re saying is blatantly wrong on so many levels.
- False. If you define a distinct species as a taxon whose individuals cannot interbreed with existing species -which is the actual definition of speciation-, then all apes are, by definition, the same species, for they can all interbreed. All apes have the same DNA, thus their offspring -being half of each parental DNA, is the same DNA. 
Apart from habitat and behavioural differences of not seeing each other as potential mates, there’s also chromosome and enzyme differences. Though i would agree a chimpanzee and a bonobo could create a hybrid, a gorilla and chimpanzee on the other hand, not so much.

When you say ALL apes are interfertile with each other, you’re simply wrong.

“Same sh*t as before. This is *not* Evolution. All apes are, in fact, inter-fertile. They are all, in effect, the same species, under the strictest definition of species.”

How closely related organisms are to one another doesn’t always translate to being interfertile. Take hares and rabbits as a classic example.  
- That's begging the question. I don't adhere to the evolutionary mythology, "closely related" means nothing to me. Zeus makes more sense than this nonsense. You have the same DNA as your parents reshuffled, their parents too, & theirs, ad infinitum. It's always the same human DNA (genome). A chimpanzee's DNA is ceded to their offspring reshuffled, & theirs, ad infinitum. A human genome shares 20% of the chimp's genes. At one point has this 80% extra gene (2.4 billion base pairs) suddenly appear in the DNA?!  They really take people for cretin imbeciles. You have to establish the truth of the theory first, before taking it for granted. Regardless, none of this doesn't change the fact that apes are inter-fertile. 
“That's begging the question. I don't adhere to the evolutionary mythology, "closely related" means nothing to me. Zeus makes more sense than this nonsense.”
That doesn’t surprise me. 

“You have the same DNA as your parents reshuffled, their parents too, & theirs, ad infinitum. It's always the same human DNA (genome).“
Do you understand that gene mutations occur? 


“A human genome shares 20% of the chimp's genes. At one point has this 80% extra gene (2.4 billion base pairs) suddenly appear in the DNA?!  They really take people for cretin imbeciles.”

I suppose you’re getting that information from your Imam.

Here’s a link to an explanation of the taxonomical differences between species and genus: 
- This is BS. "Two organisms from the same genus may produce fertile offsprings. But two organisms from two different genera cannot produce offsprings that are capable of reproduction. " is factually false, there is interbreeding on the order level, & the class level, let alone on the genera level -such as the case for moths & butterflies. You shocked? Yeah, there is actually no objective definition for any taxon. As the evolutionary biologist (aka mythologist) Prof Roger Butlin said: "We tend not to argue about what defines a species anymore, because that doesn't get you anywhere". Isn't that convenient.
I agree it’s complicated and there are many grey areas. that’s the rough outline. I wouldn’t say it’s perfect by any stretch. 

- No. I'm tired of explaining every other thing. For something you so wholeheartedly defend you don't seem to know a lot about. The very article you linked is case enough.
Well can you give me your sources from your imam or whoever. 
 
You don’t even click on the links and read them. I don’t even think you read your own. There’s no point to it other than it being a facade.
- What makes you YOU believe the evolutionary theory is undeniable fact? Show me THAT. 
I’m a naturalist and evolution as we know it is the closest thing we have to know how speciation occurs 

I’ve given you plenty of sources already, but here you go…



Well I am starting to feel a headache coming on.
- Trying to wrap your hand around this nonsense.
What would you be wrapping your hand around? The common phrase is ‘wrapping your head around’
This is what I would call a form of projection. 

There are many hypotheses to the origins of life. It does not mean the theory of evolution is wrong.
- Then we will go through everyone of these hypotheses & check. Give me your best. Regardless of the truth of evolution, the theory of evolution is still unscientific. There is a non-zero possibility that organisms morphed ones into others ("evolved" if you will) through an unknown processes. The theory of evolution stays forever nonetheless unscientific, ad hoc after the fact mythology.
“- Then we will go through everyone of these hypotheses & check. Give me your best.”
I’m not sure which is the best. What’s yours? I suppose Allah. 

You can pretty much say the same thing about star and planet formations. That gas and dust spontaneously compounds/collapses and creates chemical reactions, etc. But do you have any conjecture for them?
- My bachelor essay was on a similar topic. About how gravitation induces revolution of matter around a massive core, which compresses under gravitation force & transforms into heat, which -by energy conservation principals- forms spheroids. You can do all this with maths, to very accurate degrees. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is in its entirety ad hoc after the fact stories. 
To a very “accurate degree” until new discoveries come to light and new formulas are formulated. This is true in physics in general. 

“The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is in its entirety ad hoc after the fact stories.”
Evolution is still occurring. The origins of life is a small but still important part that hasn’t been figured out yet. 

I’ll put it simple for you. Knowing how to drive a car doesn’t require you to know how an engine works. But if your car breaks down, maybe it will inform you.
- That's a pharmacist. & besides the point.
And you think pharmacists will be looking to quantum physics for answers?

- What does this have to do with Evolution? Which part of this is useful because of Evolution? 

Which part of knowing viruses mutate is useful because of evolution?
- Again, what does this have to do with the theory of evolution?! 
It’s how evolution functions. The question is stupid. Hence my planet and star formation comparison.

It’s like asking, ‘what’s useful about planets and stars forming because of gravity?’
- No it is not. One is an observable fact, the other is an imaginative mythology. Further, our understanding of planet formation stems from our understanding of gravitation. Our understanding of virus variants & similarities stems naught from evolutionary narratives. On the contrary, the evolutionary narrative can only hamper such understanding. 
Where does our understanding of gravity come from? 
 
Why bother?
- Because you know your position is untenable. 
You’re unable to see the forest through the trees. 
If you’re able to laser focus on a tree, good for you. 
Topic's author
#88
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
um... no? We know that finches developed long enough to eventually gain features which best suited their environment - natural selection - which is a mechanism that simply describes how creatures either adapt to their environment or die. Simple as that -
- It actually doesn't. It guesses though, inventing new guesses every couple of decades to stomp old ones. Pathetic! lol!

evolution is the long term process of that - no unlimited time shit - your making strawmen.
- No such thing. How you keep reiterating  the same myths over & over with such confidence is beside me.

Furthermore, you simply handwaved my evidence away with no actual evidence - until you bring an ounce of evidence I consider you a conspiracy theorist - all you have to do to change my mind is actually present evidence for your conclusion. 
- I made no conclusions. I pointed out that your "evidence" is a bunch of factual lies. If you're not aware of something as basic as Darwin finches are actually interfertile (or the other facts I mentioned), then you shouldn't be speaking so boastfully about this topic. The most hilarious thing about this is how pathetic & lame this mythology is they have to use & reuse the same list of some twenty lies ad nauseam. If you had actual arguments for the truth of evolutionation, then this discussion would've ended. Sadly, there are none.
Topic's author
#89
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Reece101

Yet your link did state the scholars adopted the basic idea of evolution from Aristotle, correct? You have to admit this was more than 1000 years after Aristotle’s time.
- We know what Aristotle said. We know what al-Jahiz & his successors said. They said different things, it's not a conspiracy. In fact, al-Jahiz often quotes Aristotle in his book al-Hayawan in derogatory tones -for instance in the case where he mocks Aristotle for suggesting the existence of double-headed snakes. This was before Greek philosophers gained prominence in the Muslim world, which came after al-Kindi's works, founder of the Falsafa school of thought (Islamic philosophy).

First you bring up Dunning-Kruger and now you bring up psychological projection. 
If you’re going to use pop-psychology, at least read up on them.
- I was gunna respond with something, but this was a decent comeback. 

And I shared information too, the same as you.
- I asked for proofs, not links. Use your words. Make an argument.

You don’t know what psychological projection is. If you knew, you would know that’s obviously not the case.
- Red herring.

Are you a Young Earth Creationist?
- Look what we have here. You had to say that from loss of confidence in your arguments. Guess what, evolutionationsts are far more delusional than youngEarthcreationists. 

If you agree natural selection occurs, why do you have a problem with speciation?
- One is fact, the other is fiction. The most famous story of speciation that they taught us & still teach all over the world, is the tale of Darwin's finches & their "speciation". As it turns out, Darwin's finches are actually interfertile. No speciation ever occurred. Yet, the mythologists insist to telling this lie because frankly they got nothing! 

Depending on the organism, let’s say 100,000 generations, you think they’ll still be the same species from where their ancestors started?
- Dude. Your own DNA is copied & split in your own body into 100 trillion cells, each cell copying DNA & making some 50 million proteins, that's 5 billion trillion times (not just 100,000), & still the same effing DNA. Cyanobacteria has been going on since 3.5 billion years, that's more than 100 trillion generations. It's still cyanobacteria.

Apart from habitat and behavioural differences of not seeing each other as potential mates, there’s also chromosome and enzyme differences. Though i would agree a chimpanzee and a bonobo could create a hybrid, a gorilla and chimpanzee on the other hand, not so much.
When you say ALL apes are interfertile with each other, you’re simply wrong.
- Interfertile =/= interbreed. Amazon tribal people are interfertile with Inuit people even though they don't interbreed. If you're talking about the human-gorilla clad vs. human-chimpanzee clad theories, then nothing is conclusive as of yet. Studies have been done on gorilla "hybrids". But I will grant you this, whoever side of the argument wins, those flimsy trees will change yet again. lol! Regardless, if in the case of gorillas not being interfertile with other apes, then they are their own species, as is the case for gibbons. All this is entirely besides the point, which is morphology =/= descent. Wolves, coyotes, dogs... are all interfertile, yet they look so different. In effect, these are all the same kind, the same species, in different races.  

Do you understand that gene mutations occur? 
- Lmao! Have you ever taken a class in biology! All mutations are bad news. Have you heard of cancer? The abusively called snips or variants are not actually mutations in the evolutionary sense. All these discussions show a deep lack of knowledge in molecular biology & the function of the cell.

I suppose you’re getting that information from your Imam.
- This amount of deliriousness is getting more & more exciting. I'm quite sure you haven't read the publications on this, otherwise you wouldn't have sent me this nonsense. But I'll make it simple.

- One, they use programs like Blast or Blat, which function based on a mathematical model of successive mutations (like Dayhoff model), to map out divergence in code distribution in given DNAs from a reconstructed reference DNA. Basically, they assume evolution is true & that a high number of mutations happened, then based on this assumption they conjure an imaginary "original" DNA code, then they check their DNAs against this imaginary one to note supposed deletions & insertions & substitutions...etc. After that, the popular science turns "evolution is true, therefore DNA is similar" to "DNA is similar, therefore evolution is true". & boom!

- Two, the *actual* similarity between human DNA & chimp DNA is around 70%, at best. Using the aforementioned programs, they determined that 75% of human DNA code is most congruent with 82% of chimp DNA code; so they discarded the rest (basically 30%), then discarded any insertion or deletion (some 3%), to claim a 1-2% difference in DNA... Isn't his the most hilariously pathetic story!? It's so cringe I know!

- Three, & this is really funny, the cosmic stupidity that we just witnessed can, in fact, be applied to absolutely any computer binary code & will give similar results. Take any two computer codes (0s & 1s), of a book or a program or an image. Then compare them with the assumption that they descent from the same parent code. Then eliminate the incongruent parts, you will inevitably end up with a very tiny difference -around 1%. In fact, this is -probabilistically speaking- a necessity, for the average 0-1 ratio in any uncompressed code is about 50-50%. I've done this myself btw. Here is an exercise, take any two -fairly large- texts of similar size, one in Chinese & the other in English, convert them to binary, then compare them. You'll get something around 70% similarity.

- Four, & this one is interesting. In retrospect, other camps among these evolutionationists are estimating similar ranges for other animals instead, namely gorillas & rats, away from chimpanzees. In truth, you can do the same for any mammal, for their genome size are around the 3 gigabases. You just need to tweak the algorithm a little bit, & boom the elephant is 99% human. 

- Finally, similarity in DNA code means absolutely nothing, the same way similarity between two binary codes mean nothing. It's not about the binary sequence, it's about the meaning of that sequence, aka words & sentences. In DNA case, these are instructions, aka genes, to make proteins. Proteins are basically workers with specific tasks in the cell; billions of types of proteins are produced by the human body, making on average trillions of each. Proteins are constructed from gene instructions; some genes can engender thousands of different proteins. Comparing chimp proteins with human proteins we can infer the information in the genes, that 80% of proteins are different between these two species. This is analogous to comparing two source codes, not based on some binary code similarity, but rather based on the actual instructions in the codes.

I agree it’s complicated and there are many grey areas. that’s the rough outline. I wouldn’t say it’s perfect by any stretch.
- It's BS. Myth. Nonsense.  I will tell you why "it's complicated". In this particular case the answer is pretty straight forward. Strict definitions of taxonomies prevent evolutionationists from taking advantage of equivocations & ambiguities to further expand their fantasies. If speciation & species was strictly defined based on interfertility (which they profess when it suits them but ignore when it doesn't), then Darwin's finches would be strictly one species, which means no speciation happened within the Galapagos finches, thus no evolution. Instead, they claim these are different species, because they are non-interfertile, due to long isolation & evolution from a common type; BUT the the fact that they are in fact interfertile shouldn't diminish from this, because they are not interbreeding as same species, rather as hybrids, & we will call this hybridization. Genius isn't it! You gotta give it to them, they finally achieved squaring the circle. 

Well can you give me your sources from your imam or whoever. 
- Your very sources do that job, if you've actually read them. But it's all besides the point, natural selection with evolution, that is by random mutation, is non-starter. Justifying a formal cause with a final cause is nonsense.
 
I’m a naturalist and evolution as we know it is the closest thing we have to know how speciation occurs 
- No such thing. Fantasy, bunch of drivel. 

I’ve given you plenty of sources already, but here you go…
- Thanks for the links, but why do you assume I don't know all this?! I don't read that stuff, I read publications or books. I'm quite familiar with the literature, or rather mythology. If this hogwash is the best evidence for Evolution shouldn't you ask yourself, how can there be such abysmal support for such a gigantic claim.

What would you be wrapping your hand around? The common phrase is ‘wrapping your head around’
- That was clearly a typo... "wrap your head..."

I’m not sure which is the best. What’s yours?
- Lol! It should be evident by now I think Jack Schitt about this mythology.

I suppose Allah.
- Allah does what He pleases. Evolution being true or not does not add or diminish anything from God's power. On the contrary, the better we understand the universe, the better we get close to Allah.

To a very “accurate degree” until new discoveries come to light and new formulas are formulated. This is true in physics in general. 
- To add more accuracy to the existing accuracy. The conjecture that is evolutionary theory has zero accuracy to begin with. Naught.

Evolution is still occurring. The origins of life is a small but still important part that hasn’t been figured out yet. 
- In the minds of evolutionationists, of course. Reality is otherwise.

And you think pharmacists will be looking to quantum physics for answers?
- Moving on.

It’s how evolution functions. The question is stupid. Hence my planet and star formation comparison.
- Is this some cognitive issue I'm seeing here?! Since when has the theory of evolution become the fact of evolution, in order to prove evolution. Circular much?! Lmao! You're so hardwired to think in this mythology, you forget that the theory of evolution is a claim, a postulate, a theory. In your attempt to show the usefulness of this theory in research, you profess the supposed usefulness of a conjured to-be-factual evolution. This is like asking a Christian how is the Bible useful, & him telling me because it's from God. As to your fallacious analogy, it is our understanding of gravitation, which is expressed in the *THEORY* of Gravitation as per Einstein's equations (& others), that begets our understanding of star formation. In this sense, the *THEORY* of Gravitation helps us understand star formation, not the fact of gravitation itself. Contrastingly, the *theory* of evolution is as useful as a glass hammer, inspired from a myth.

Where does our understanding of gravity come from? 
- Thanks to a man called al-Biruni, who established that gravitation is inversely proportional to distance from center of mass; & another called Ibn Barakat, who said gravitation is proportional to force, which is proportional to acceleration of motion; & another called Einstein, who said gravitation is curvature in spacetime.
 
You’re unable to see the forest through the trees. 
If you’re able to laser focus on a tree, good for you. 
- Proof.

#90
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,917
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Yassine
Yet your link did state the scholars adopted the basic idea of evolution from Aristotle, correct? You have to admit this was more than 1000 years after Aristotle’s time.
- We know what Aristotle said. We know what al-Jahiz & his successors said. They said different things, it's not a conspiracy. In fact, al-Jahiz often quotes Aristotle in his book al-Hayawan in derogatory tones -for instance in the case where he mocks Aristotle for suggesting the existence of double-headed snakes. This was before Greek philosophers gained prominence in the Muslim world, which came after al-Kindi's works, founder of the Falsafa school of thought (Islamic philosophy).
I don’t know enough about this to comment apart from knowing double headed snakes definitely exist.

Are you a Young Earth Creationist?
- Look what we have here. You had to say that from loss of confidence in your arguments. Guess what, evolutionationsts are far more delusional than youngEarthcreationists. 
I asked because you almost have to be a Young Earth Creationist to believe evolution doesn’t/hasn’t occurred. What are your beliefs?

If you agree natural selection occurs, why do you have a problem with speciation?
- One is fact, the other is fiction. The most famous story of speciation that they taught us & still teach all over the world, is the tale of Darwin's finches & their "speciation". As it turns out, Darwin's finches are actually interfertile. No speciation ever occurred. Yet, the mythologists insist to telling this lie because frankly they got nothing! 
Species is the lowest rank on the taxonomical tree.  
Of course two closely related species are interfertile. 

Also keep in mind the Galápagos Islands is essentially one biome.
Little evolutionary pressure apart from the various foods they eat such as fruit, seeds, nectar, etc.

So yes, it’s speciation. 

Depending on the organism, let’s say 100,000 generations, you think they’ll still be the same species from where their ancestors started?
- Dude. Your own DNA is copied & split in your own body into 100 trillion cells, each cell copying DNA & making some 50 million proteins, that's 5 billion trillion times (not just 100,000), & still the same effing DNA. Cyanobacteria has been going on since 3.5 billion years, that's more than 100 trillion generations. It's still cyanobacteria.
So humans have been around for 3.5 billion years? 

Apart from habitat and behavioural differences of not seeing each other as potential mates, there’s also chromosome and enzyme differences. Though i would agree a chimpanzee and a bonobo could create a hybrid, a gorilla and chimpanzee on the other hand, not so much.
When you say ALL apes are interfertile with each other, you’re simply wrong.
- Interfertile =/= interbreed. Amazon tribal people are interfertile with Inuit people even though they don't interbreed. If you're talking about the human-gorilla clad vs. human-chimpanzee clad theories, then nothing is conclusive as of yet. Studies have been done on gorilla "hybrids". But I will grant you this, whoever side of the argument wins, those flimsy trees will change yet again. lol! Regardless, if in the case of gorillas not being interfertile with other apes, then they are their own species, as is the case for gibbons. All this is entirely besides the point, which is morphology =/= descent. Wolves, coyotes, dogs... are all interfertile, yet they look so different. In effect, these are all the same kind, the same species, in different races.  
I have no problem with you calling them races. Races would fall under species just as species falls under genus, etc. 

Do you understand that gene mutations occur? 
- Lmao! Have you ever taken a class in biology! All mutations are bad news. Have you heard of cancer? The abusively called snips or variants are not actually mutations in the evolutionary sense. All these discussions show a deep lack of knowledge in molecular biology & the function of the cell.
All mutations are harmful? Like becoming lactose tolerant? You can see this in the human genetic/migratory record. This is natural selection.

I suppose you’re getting that information from your Imam.
- This amount of deliriousness is getting more & more exciting. I'm quite sure you haven't read the publications on this, otherwise you wouldn't have sent me this nonsense. But I'll make it simple. 

- One, they use programs like Blast or Blat, which function based on a mathematical model of successive mutations (like Dayhoff model), to map out divergence in code distribution in given DNAs from a reconstructed reference DNA. Basically, they assume evolution is true & that a high number of mutations happened, then based on this assumption they conjure an imaginary "original" DNA code, then they check their DNAs against this imaginary one to note supposed deletions & insertions & substitutions...etc. After that, the popular science turns "evolution is true, therefore DNA is similar" to "DNA is similar, therefore evolution is true". & boom! 

- Two, the *actual* similarity between human DNA & chimp DNA is around 70%, at best. Using the aforementioned programs, they determined that 75% of human DNA code is most congruent with 82% of chimp DNA code; so they discarded the rest (basically 30%), then discarded any insertion or deletion (some 3%), to claim a 1-2% difference in DNA... Isn't his the most hilariously pathetic story!? It's so cringe I know! 

- Three, & this is really funny, the cosmic stupidity that we just witnessed can, in fact, be applied to absolutely any computer binary code & will give similar results. Take any two computer codes (0s & 1s), of a book or a program or an image. Then compare them with the assumption that they descent from the same parent code. Then eliminate the incongruent parts, you will inevitably end up with a very tiny difference -around 1%. In fact, this is -probabilistically speaking- a necessity, for the average 0-1 ratio in any uncompressed code is about 50-50%. I've done this myself btw. Here is an exercise, take any two -fairly large- texts of similar size, one in Chinese & the other in English, convert them to binary, then compare them. You'll get something around 70% similarity.

- Four, & this one is interesting. In retrospect, other camps among these evolutionationists are estimating similar ranges for other animals instead, namely gorillas & rats, away from chimpanzees. In truth, you can do the same for any mammal, for their genome size are around the 3 gigabases. You just need to tweak the algorithm a little bit, & boom the elephant is 99% human. 

- Finally, similarity in DNA code means absolutely nothing, the same way similarity between two binary codes mean nothing. It's not about the binary sequence, it's about the meaning of that sequence, aka words & sentences. In DNA case, these are instructions, aka genes, to make proteins. Proteins are basically workers with specific tasks in the cell; billions of types of proteins are produced by the human body, making on average trillions of each. Proteins are constructed from gene instructions; some genes can engender thousands of different proteins. Comparing chimp proteins with human proteins we can infer the information in the genes, that 80% of proteins are different between these two species. This is analogous to comparing two source codes, not based on some binary code similarity, but rather based on the actual instructions in the codes.
You gave me a link that doesn’t support any of that.