BookTalk.org

"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?

person123 wrote:"In science, a clear and simple argument with strong predictive power"

What predicitive power does "evolution" have? What did it ever predicted?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

I'm still on 2-3 chambers heart because evolution can't explain this.... and not only this, but also many more.

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.

Person wrote:I'm still on 2-3 chambers heart because evolution can't explain this.... and not only this, but also many more.

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.

So no point keep bringing me those examples... it's pointless. It supports both inteligent design and darwinian evolution equally.

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.

The problem begins when we have complex structures that can't be explained by gradual mutations... that's a problem for evolution.

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.

"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...