Oh, BTW. A 49 million year old, fully aquatic ancient whale fossil would clearly demonstrate that the younger so-called ‘transistional’ fossils were, in fact, nothing of the sort. To claim otherwise is science fiction, and is illogical.

I have read just the first few pages of this thread.

My initial take of your post OP was how are you so sure of your position? I mean, to declare yourself an atheist beyond a doubt is a faith based decision just like a Christian claiming god's existence.

Yes, the scientific community can give probabilities based on what we know, and yes those probabilities in this time in history do not point to god's existence. However, the first building block of physics is based on the atomic hypothesis, never proven, assumed by all scientists.

My point being that devout Christians or overly confident atheist are similar, just different ends of the spectrum. Both are using faith to make a declaration they can not prove.

festeringzit

Despite me pointing it out, you've carried on to attack evolution, without offering the leap to creationism. Even the paper you posted just explained how views on evolution are changing, not that the idea is wrong.

Why don't you offer the positive evidence for creationism?

It's spelled transitional, and it's an irrelevant word to boot. Your analysis is also wrong, a correction of a timeline is very interesting, but does not pose a problem - since no credible authorities has ever argued that these things are known to full detail. We correct our knowledge of these things all the time, and we will of course continue to do so. That's why it is a scientific field. This isn't even the biggest recent finding that has forced us to revisit our knowledge of such things, but course... when you only gain your knowledge of these things from arbitrary networks of fundamentalist propaganda - you are going to miss out.

Not that you would care about any of that, as it is clear that your demand for "evolution" is that every fossil on this earth must be excavated, studied, fully agreed upon and this record must represent a perfect chronological chain / tree.

Not that this completely bonkers demand would help (it's clearly just a rhetorical crutch for you), because we know very well that when consensus is broad, you always just argue conspiracy and shout some pamphlet-hyperbole. I sincerely doubt that even if you have spent 10+ years here arguing against evolution that your understanding of the subject would be enough to earn you a passing grade on a junior high biology test.

Add to this that the standard of evidence for your religious theory is non-existent, that you enjoy insulting anyone who argues with you and that you in general show absolutely understanding or willingness to understand the concepts you argue...

... and your relevance drops to, well, pretty much the opposite of biblical proportions.

Hilarious. *My* analysis is from Ph.D. (non-creationist) biologists, that is Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. So your blather is completely meaningless,
and exposes you for being a complete troll. I never even mentioned
some "religious theory," you just throw crap in there to try and bolster
your non-existent argument. Fact is, guys like you are so brain-washed
by your nonsensical neo-Darwinist dogma, you can't even think logically.

No one has even close to an answer to the question of how the whale
testis cooling system "evolved" while the creature supposedly evolved
from a land-mammal. You know why? Because it's impossible, and it
didn't happen. At least not through neo-Darwinistic means.

And you just spout logical fallacies while you don't address the main simple question I posed (because you can't).

How did the ancestor of a hippo evolve into a whale in a blink of an eye in evolutionary time, especially given the issues I previously mentioned?

Clue: You can't just move the goalposts on this one like the Darwinist usually do

Tick Tock...

Tick tock on this too...

What alternative explanation can you provide? Do you dispute evolution altogether or just specific instances where you find the evidence lacking?

Hey festeringZit, in case you haven't seen it: I put forward an idea for a thread that might be interesting to explore (here is the post in Official RGT random **** thread).

I'm willing to go where the evidence leads. I used to be a YEC a long time
ago, but once I started looking at the evidence, I realized that was an untenable position. I am currently a OEC, but am willing to move to
a theistic evolutionary position if can be convinced. I just think
neo-Darwinism is a house of cards with very little evidence.

I have a lot more respect for people that are willing to look critically at the failures of neo-Darwinism, from a purely scientific viewpoint:

"The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process."

http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

I'm not a YEC, and haven't been for a very long time...

I thought we were getting somewhere then, and then you went back to attacking neo-Darwinism.

Just state your beliefs and the positive evidence for them.

If he believes the earth is old and that mutations occur then of course he believes that there is evolution.

Neo-Darwinism and its successor Synthesis theory are 100+ year old paradigms, and they reached their height some good ten years before we even learned the molecular structure of DNA in the late 40s / early 50s.

So how on earth were they supposed to incorporate recent research like epigenetics (that is literally about on changes in DNA sequences)? And in what possible scenario can this be interesting or relevant criticism?

If the point is that science is never really finished, then yes, by all means that is true. That is not a weakness. Case in point: The ideas these paradigms spurred, the knowledge they lacked, the technology they needed, debates they fostered and the controversies they had to tackle led to epigenetics.

And here, Ladies and Gentlemen, we have the sterotypical Trump voter. We also have the archetype of the villain for my OP.

Coincidence?

And here, Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a person who has demonstrated themself to be rather incapable of reasoning making smug pronouncement that they have found a singular piece of evidence to support their pre-existing beliefs in spite of the lack of sufficient evidence and sufficient warrant to hold those beliefs.

Indeed, the "stereotypical Trump voter" is unlikely to espouse this particular framework of thought with regards to evolution. This is because it is unlikely that the average person (let alone, the average Evangelical) would use the term "Neo-Darwinism" or even know what is meant by it.

(But facts have never deterred d2_e4 in the past, and there's even a demonstrated staunch resistance to them. And now that I think about it, the "stereotypical Trump voter" seems to follow that same pattern...)

Coming from the person who has failed to produce a successful argument for anything in this thread? Nope.

.

I imagine "neo-darwinism" means about as much as "quantum cleaning" in a TV advert for the next best laundry detergent. To that extent, I imagine it means as much to him as it does to other Trump voters.

Edit: but god, tho. He's pretty cool, and not in any of those categories.

I acknowledge that having been the OP, the burden of proof is on me to "prove" my point, and I have not done that particularly successfully.

However, in general, if a person proposes that "god exists" and another person proposes that "god doesn't exist", where would you say the burden of proof lies?

You are free to imagine the world however you choose. But it's probably best that you try to align your beliefs with the actual world as much as possible. That usually starts with actual data and not imagined data.

Okay.

It's odd that you start off a specific example with "in general."

But in any case, I would say that both sides have asserted something and so both sides have something to prove.

When it comes to reasonableness, rationality, the scientific method, or Occam's Razor, you'd be wrong.

Edit: I assert you committed a crime. You assert you didn't. Do we both have something to prove?

Edit2: I can't believe I have to explain this to someone from a country where the whole concept of "burden of proof" is enshrined since middle school. Or do you not understand what "innocent until proven guilty" means?

Boom - 2nd headshot.

It's funny that you use those words, yet you don't really understand what they mean. Did I say funny? I meant sad.

That you would conflate the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" and "burden of proof" continues to highlight for me the ways in which you really have little to no clue about the things you pretend to know about. One is a particular legal concept (which is subject to the laws of the land -- in some places, you aren't innocent until proven guilty) and the other is a philosophical concept (the person making the claim bears the burden of proving the claim).

Even in the context of law, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. That's why it's possible for a jury to declare someone "not guilty" while also not assenting that the person is "innocent." But that would probably confuse you more than bring clarity, so maybe I shouldn't mention that.

It's also clear you don't realize it, but we've already discussed burden of proof once previously (ironically, drawing from an analogy using legal language), and you seemed confused by it then. That you have thus far learned nothing from the conversation should be a surprise to nobody.


---

LOL. Little do you realize that it's your own head that was asploded. That's okay, you're clearly not using the contents contained therein effectively, so it's probably of little loss.

Do you feel a need to have the last word on everything? You can have it. You are the one who keeps replying to me when I reply to any other poster.

Altho completely ignoring that my point was that you have pretty much said "you made an assertion, I made an assertion, we both have to prove our asserstions", and then ignoring any points I made to the contrary was a sweet touch.

FFS, I'll explain this in a second. You are a very good troll, I'll give you that.

Edit. Made a draft, but lost it, so, not going to bother.