"In science, a clear and simple argument with strong predictive power"
What predicitive power does "evolution" have? What did it ever predicted?
"On all relevant problems where data is available, the theory of evolution fully excludes supernatural mythology"
Really? So can you tell me how 3 chambers heart have evolved? Or how unique DNA evolved? or how a bacterium flagellum evolved?
-
In total there are 22 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 22 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am
promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
- geo
-
- pets endangered by possible book avalanche
- Posts: 4779
- Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
- 15
- Location: NC
- Has thanked: 2198 times
- Been thanked: 2200 times
Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
Yikes! You betray your ignorance of the subject by asking this question. There are numerous examples of evolutionary theory's predictive power, as well as potential discoveries that would falsify the theory.person123 wrote:"In science, a clear and simple argument with strong predictive power"
What predicitive power does "evolution" have? What did it ever predicted?
This web site has a ton of information.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Just one example mentioned is that it was predicted that we would find transitional species between what is considered the first whale, Pakicetus, and the modern whale. In fact, several have been found.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... vograms_03
Also, numerous instances of fossils have been found in specific geological strata exactly where predicted because it was already known when the organism lived. Likewise, it is known that several ancestors of humans—Australopithicus, Ardipithecus, and Kenyanthropus evolved in Africa long after the supercontinent Gondwana split off, so we would expect to find fossils of these early humans only in Africa. It would be problematic for the theory of universal common descent if we found fossils of these early humans in Antarctica, Australia, North America or South America.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... graphy_ex3
Why are we doing your research for you? That's the question you should be asking yourself. Certainly someone who would presume to write a book about evolution would have some knowledge of the subject.
-Geo
Question everything
Question everything
Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
I asked you for 3 things:
1. how 2 chamber heart evolved into 3 chamber.
2. how did we get our unique dna that separates us from apes.
3. how bacteria evolved a flagellum.
But you don't have to answer... there is no point to argue about this.
1. how 2 chamber heart evolved into 3 chamber.
2. how did we get our unique dna that separates us from apes.
3. how bacteria evolved a flagellum.
But you don't have to answer... there is no point to argue about this.
- LanDroid
-
- Comandante Literario Supreme
- Posts: 2800
- Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
- 21
- Location: Cincinnati, OH
- Has thanked: 195 times
- Been thanked: 1166 times
Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
You also asked about what predictions evolution could make. Geo answered that, did you look at it?
Geo provided information on the evolution of the heart from 3 chambers to 4, did you look at that?
Geo provided information on the evolution of the heart from 3 chambers to 4, did you look at that?
Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
What predictions? What I'm supposed to look at?
The transitional between land mammal and a whale? Just because it looks likes a transitional, doesn't mean that it really is.
V-22 Osprey or Rotodyne aircrafts look like transitionals between helicopter and airplane, but that doesn't mean that it's a product of darwinian evolution.
Also SSC Bloodhound looks like transitional between a formula 1 and a jet fighter... doesn't have to do anything with darwinian evolution though.
Also I didn't asked for evolution between 3 and 4 chamber heart... did you notice?
Yes there are numerous diffirent 3 chamber hearts, that some of them knid of look like 4 chambers heart... so there is no clear line between 3 and 4 chamber hearts. So you might interpert it as "evolution". But what about the 2 chambers heart? You don't get to cherry pick.
The transitional between land mammal and a whale? Just because it looks likes a transitional, doesn't mean that it really is.
V-22 Osprey or Rotodyne aircrafts look like transitionals between helicopter and airplane, but that doesn't mean that it's a product of darwinian evolution.
Also SSC Bloodhound looks like transitional between a formula 1 and a jet fighter... doesn't have to do anything with darwinian evolution though.
Also I didn't asked for evolution between 3 and 4 chamber heart... did you notice?
Yes there are numerous diffirent 3 chamber hearts, that some of them knid of look like 4 chambers heart... so there is no clear line between 3 and 4 chamber hearts. So you might interpert it as "evolution". But what about the 2 chambers heart? You don't get to cherry pick.
Last edited by person123 on Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:40 am, edited 4 times in total.
- Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
Why are you still on about the 2 to 3 chambered heart? Did you read through the articles from google scholar, or are you wanting Booktalk.org members to do it for you?
“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
I'm still on 2-3 chambers heart because evolution can't explain this.... and not only this, but also many more.
Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
People let me save you some time:
No point continuing bringing me examples of similarities between different organisms... I will always have identical examples of those similarities from human design experience. Gradual increase in complexity (iphone 1,2,3.. ), "evolutionary tree" (skateboard,bycicle,motorbike, three wheeler, car, truck, semitrailer, airplane, cargo ship)
Also I have plenty "transitional examples":
half boat half car:
https://www.google.co.il/search?q=half+ ... zyFE2nlPfM:
half car half airplane:
https://www.google.co.il/search?client= ... P6wHeyEwdM:
half motorbike half car:
https://www.google.co.il/search?client= ... Rf3JT2McAM:
half 3 wheeler half helicopter
https://www.google.co.il/search?client= ... f3tLiF9nEM:
and many more...
So no point keep bringing me those examples... it's pointless. It supports both inteligent design and darwinian evolution equally.
The problem begins when we have complex structures that can't be explained by gradual mutations... that's a problem for evolution.
No point continuing bringing me examples of similarities between different organisms... I will always have identical examples of those similarities from human design experience. Gradual increase in complexity (iphone 1,2,3.. ), "evolutionary tree" (skateboard,bycicle,motorbike, three wheeler, car, truck, semitrailer, airplane, cargo ship)
Also I have plenty "transitional examples":
half boat half car:
https://www.google.co.il/search?q=half+ ... zyFE2nlPfM:
half car half airplane:
https://www.google.co.il/search?client= ... P6wHeyEwdM:
half motorbike half car:
https://www.google.co.il/search?client= ... Rf3JT2McAM:
half 3 wheeler half helicopter
https://www.google.co.il/search?client= ... f3tLiF9nEM:
and many more...
So no point keep bringing me those examples... it's pointless. It supports both inteligent design and darwinian evolution equally.
The problem begins when we have complex structures that can't be explained by gradual mutations... that's a problem for evolution.
- Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
That's an ontologically postitive claim. The onus is on your to prove this negative. So stop spouting this foolishness and read the articles that proves your point. Scour the existing knowledgebase and show that an explanation doesn't exist. Stop asking for others to do the legwork.Person wrote:I'm still on 2-3 chambers heart because evolution can't explain this.... and not only this, but also many more.
Not according to the best methods we have at acquiring knowledge. If we come up with some explanation that is untestable, intangible, not reproducible, etc, then it can be discarded. There's nothing here but the fog of foolishness surrounding a mountain of evolution.So no point keep bringing me those examples... it's pointless. It supports both inteligent design and darwinian evolution equally.
Those examples also prove the alien dream hypothesis, the futuristic human video game hypothesis, the satanic illusion hypothesis, the invisible alien interruptor hypothesis, and likely hundreds more. And they're all garbage because they aren't tangible, aren't testable, the crucial experiments aren't reproducible, and they're the last thing from parsimonious. Stick to what's real and there's a single competitor in the cage. Don't let youtube tell you otherwise.
Are you talking about the thousands of examples that ARE explained? Or the missing puzzle pieces that aren't? The fog of war doesn't become uncovered in a heartbeat. Research the long history of "irreducibly complex" traits that have since been shown to be anything but. The success rate of evolution to provide an explanatory framework for these gaps is 100%. If you think you've finally found the jackpot of a trait that can't be explained, you're going to be proven wrong by history.The problem begins when we have complex structures that can't be explained by gradual mutations... that's a problem for evolution.
“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
"That's an ontologically postitive claim. The onus is on your to prove this negative. So stop spouting this foolishness and read the articles that proves your point. Scour the existing knowledgebase and show that an explanation doesn't exist. Stop asking for others to do the legwork."
I did do the legwork... no one knows how anything have evolved really... only guesses and maybe stories... no one knows how eyes evolved, how lungs evolved, how kidneys evolved, how liver evolved etc etc....
"Not according to the best methods we have at acquiring knowledge. If we come up with some explanation that is untestable, intangible, not reproducible, etc, then it can be discarded. There's nothing here but the fog of foolishness surrounding a mountain of evolution.
Those examples also prove the alien dream hypothesis, the futuristic human video game hypothesis, the satanic illusion hypothesis, the invisible alien interruptor hypothesis, and likely hundreds more. And they're all garbage because they aren't tangible, aren't testable, the crucial experiments aren't reproducible, and they're the last thing from parsimonious. Stick to what's real and there's a single competitor in the cage. Don't let youtube tell you otherwise."
So does evolution... it's not testable, tangible, no experiments can support it etc etc... it's just a fantasy. a myth.
"Are you talking about the thousands of examples that ARE explained? "
what examples are explained? give me at least one...
I did do the legwork... no one knows how anything have evolved really... only guesses and maybe stories... no one knows how eyes evolved, how lungs evolved, how kidneys evolved, how liver evolved etc etc....
"Not according to the best methods we have at acquiring knowledge. If we come up with some explanation that is untestable, intangible, not reproducible, etc, then it can be discarded. There's nothing here but the fog of foolishness surrounding a mountain of evolution.
Those examples also prove the alien dream hypothesis, the futuristic human video game hypothesis, the satanic illusion hypothesis, the invisible alien interruptor hypothesis, and likely hundreds more. And they're all garbage because they aren't tangible, aren't testable, the crucial experiments aren't reproducible, and they're the last thing from parsimonious. Stick to what's real and there's a single competitor in the cage. Don't let youtube tell you otherwise."
So does evolution... it's not testable, tangible, no experiments can support it etc etc... it's just a fantasy. a myth.
"Are you talking about the thousands of examples that ARE explained? "
what examples are explained? give me at least one...