|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jul-16-21
 | | OhioChessFan: Well, no, I don't see them. The game score must be wrong. Or else you were wrong when you said you mated him. |
|
| Jul-16-21 | | nikromos: He resigned after Bd4+ in view of the impending mate. |
|
| Oct-24-21 | | JohnBoy: <nik> - I certainly see that you’re close to mating him. 39.Rf2 Rg8+. Maybe 39.Qf2 avoids mate. Kinda nice to see that Jimmy Thinn has gone all foil-hat. Couldn’t happen more appropriately. |
|
| Oct-24-21 | | JohnBoy: <Peach> - I’ll defend evolution if you can manage a decent attack. It’s held up really well for the last 150y. Once it was formalized and understood, it was pretty obvious. So… tell us all about your garden gnomes. |
|
| Oct-24-21 | | JohnBoy: <perf>: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ee3C... |
|
Oct-24-21
 | | Williebob: If an extraterrestrial being visited Earth a long time ago and somehow set animal life into motion, then might not both evolutionary science and creationism be basically correct? No foil hats were worn during the creation of this kibitz. |
|
| Oct-24-21 | | JohnBoy: Sure, <Williebob>, there could have been some primal seed. Humans may be planting one now on Mars (though JPL goes to great lengths to avoid such). And the science would incorporate a primal seed theory if there was a reason to do so. I mean other than making a few people feel better. |
|
Oct-24-21
| | Williebob: Thanks, <JohnBoy>. For the record I am not opposed to the ideas of spontaneous life and complex adaptations, though there are many puzzling questions that should keep scientists humble for the time being. |
|
Oct-24-21
 | | monopole2313: Depositing one's seed and moving on is certainly nothing new, but at some point in the past it was. |
|
| Oct-24-21 | | JohnBoy: <monopole> - it’s been around at least as long as there have been young men. |
|
Oct-25-21
| | monopole2313: Which takes us back to Adam, well, the first man. Then who, or what? Creationism says one thing, evolution says something different. |
|
| Oct-27-21 | | JohnBoy: <monopole> - I was making a joking reference to common behavior of young men. To the topic, evolution says that there is no Adam. Asking when humans branched from a common ancestor w chimpanzees is very much like asking when dogs stopped being wolves. We see the process in action. |
|
| Oct-27-21 | | FM David H. Levin: The concept of species evolving from other species seems to imply the following scenario. Start with species-1. For species-1 to evolve to species-2, at least one individual of species-1 begins developing body parts that will eventually become species-2. Over the generations that the species-1 individuals in this line of succession are doing this, all of their species-1 organs and systems must remain intact and functional at least until they reproduce, or the chain that would have led to species-2 would be broken. At some point, an evolving species-1 individual would have a nearly complete set of species-2 organs and systems, yet its species-1 organs and systems would still be functional. That is, it would have nearly two complete sets of organs and systems. Here are a couple of the questions raised by this scenario: 1. Given that our generations of evolving species-1 individuals are building species-1 and species-2 cells, they would appear to require much more food than would non-evolving species-1 individuals or their competitors. So, how does even one succession of these evolving species-1 individuals persist for all of those generations? 2. If this process of one species evolving to another occurred with all known species, wouldn't individuals with both one complete set of organs and systems and a partially developed set be observed alive and in the fossil record? |
|
Oct-27-21
| | Williebob: <FM Levin>, here is a Wikipedia article that lists fossils considered to be evidence of transitional species.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...
Funny coincidence, after reading the above posts I read a little about evolution, specifically interested in the famous Miller-Urey experiment. The next day, an article appears:
https://www.newscientist.com/articl... |
|
| Oct-27-21 | | FM David H. Levin: <Williebob> - I didn't read through the entire list you supplied (thanks) of fossils. But unless they bear indications of redundant external organs (such as two sets of reproductive organs), then I'm not sure how they could be taken as constituting what I described as species-individuals having both a complete set of organs/systems and a partial set of organs/systems. I also get the impression that the interpretation of those fossils as transitional species is at least partly driven by belief in evolution. There are other issues I see. For example, the evolution toward a new species would have to yield male and female individuals whose reproductive organs were compatible, that would find each other, that were attracted to each other, whose DNA were compatible, etc. That parlay seems improbable to say the least. |
|
Oct-27-21
| | Williebob: <FM DHL: ... I also get the impression that the interpretation of those fossils as transitional species is at least partly driven by belief in evolution.>
On Wikipedia you can easily see the bias towards evolution as no longer a theory. The word "theory" does not appear anywhere in a host of articles about evolution - they really think they've got it nailed, I guess. "Intelligent design", synonymous with "Creationism", is explicitly described as pseudoscience.
I have no problem accepting strong evidence-based theories as just that, strong theories. It's arrogant certainty that I detest and distrust. |
|
| Oct-27-21 | | JohnBoy: <Levin> - what tends to happen is that groups of a species get isolated for some reason - like an earthquake closes a mountain pass. The isolated population adapts to its altered environment not by developing new organs but by selecting those members of itself that have variants of existing structures that do particularly well in the new environment. This is natural selection. Select a few dozen times and the distinctions between original population and isolated population start to become pronounced. If the distinctions become great enough that interbreeding is no longer possible we say that the two populations are no longer of the same species. This is illustrated in the famous Belyaev fox farm experiment. While the experiment has some issues, it does show how after even a few generations the phenotype changes. |
|
| Oct-27-21 | | JohnBoy: <Williebob - It's arrogant certainty that I detest and distrust.> - i.e. religion. Like Thinskin's "But be warned, If you want to continue to believe that the Fairytale of Evolutionism is based on scientific evidence to support it simply because its IMPLICATIONS happen to align with your philosophical worldview, Run away and pretend you never met me as this conversation wont end well for you." |
|
| Oct-28-21 | | FM David H. Levin: <JohnBoy> - There seem to be species that would have been sufficiently distinct to have precluded their coming into existence by natural selection. An example would be the first species to reproduce sexually. |
|
Oct-28-21
 | | keypusher: <David Levin>
<At some point, an evolving species-1 individual would have a nearly complete set of species-2 organs and systems, yet its species-1 organs and systems would still be functional. That is, it would have nearly two complete sets of organs and systems.> If you find yourself making an argument that necessarily implies that every biologist from Darwin onwards is a drooling cretin who can't count to two, that is a good sign that your argument is itself cretinous. Why not go away and learn something about evolution? If you keep your current view of the subject after becoming familiar with it, at least your anti-Darwinian arguments will not be so silly as they are now. |
|
| Oct-28-21 | | FM David H. Levin: <keypusher: If you find yourself making an argument that necessarily implies that every biologist from Darwin onwards is a drooling cretin who can't count to two, that is a good sign that your argument is itself cretinous.> Your post conveys the impression that you have implicit confidence in Evolution. I don't doubt that many contemporary scientists working in the field would agree with you. They, like the rest of us (at least in the US), were taught from an early age that Evolution is "proven," and this would have been reinforced by at least two decades of formal education. But, the assertion that Evolution is "proven" is actually inadmissible because science does not permit "proof," only disproof. Nor is science, at least true science, about popularity. The validity of a science concept is based on the evidence and reasoning behind it, and not on the percentage of scientists who supoort it. I doubt that more than a tiny percentage of the scientists working in evolution have even read Darwin's Origin of Species. I have (the sixth edition), because I wanted to see whether he addresses any of the concerns I was becoming aware of. To put it mildly, I was underwhelmed by the book. His argument consists of suppositions piled upon suppositions, and he frequently errs by assuming the validity of Evolution. The result is that Darwin presents no valid arguments whatsoever for Evolution, with the possible exception of the form of adaptation akin to what might occur within an isolated community as described by <JohnBoy>. Incidentally, many scientists have gone on record as expressing doubt about Evolution. Maybe you would find some of their views enlightening. |
|
| Oct-28-21 | | JohnBoy: <Levin> - there are species, really small and genetically simple, that reproduce asexually, others by mixing genes w another, and others (including most multicellular species) sexually. It is pretty evident that mixing genes creates more variation and gives a species greater adaptability. Since the mixing of genes happens even at the level of single cell organisms, it is a very old feature of life. Nature has had plenty of time to try various things to see what worked well. As to your claim that <many scientists have gone on record as expressing doubt about evolution>, not really. The only real debate is the extent to which Darwin's model is sufficient. Guys like Stephen Jay Gould worked up the "punctuated equilibrium" model which, last I checked, had pretty much supplanted Darwin's theory of gradual adaptation. The solidity of the theory is way up there w quantum mechanics and Maxwell's model of electromagnetism. |
|
| Jul-25-22 | | Peacharoo: Well, here is your chance to show what you guys have. I started a thread over 3 years ago asking for someone to provide Scientific Evidence to support their belief that they are a Fish-Ape that SLOWLY descended from sea sponges over 3 billion years..(Toe)..
So far I've gotten nothing.....
Regards Jim Thinnsen (Blitzking)
https://evolutionfairytale.com/foru... |
|
| Jul-25-22 | | Peacharoo: I have no problem accepting strong evidence-based theories as just that, strong theories. It's arrogant certainty that I detest and distrust." It doesn't take Arrogance to see that the Fairytale of Evolutionism is a scientific fraud. Give me your evidence..
Here is the link..
Kind Regards JT. (Blitzking)
https://evolutionfairytale.com/foru... . |
|
| Jul-25-22 | | Peacharoo: As to your claim that <many scientists have gone on record as expressing doubt about evolution>, not really" Yes... REALLY...
Darwin's dead dog corpse is only being propped up by desperate Atheists who don't want to face the truth... They are now desperately trying for a "Third Way" Look it up if you don't believe me..
"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities...Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." (Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin,"
"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these "experts" have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully." (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
