Learning Evolution

@DocSavage

A very useful post.
It's not a bunch of scientists getting together and agreeing with one another but a synthesis of data converging on the same conclusion.
And that's what makes evolution such a settled matter. Multiple fields of science independently supporting the same conclusion.

@Pikachu
Seriously? Without corruption, distortion or bias. What is presented isn't necessarily the conclusion of science. That is my primary contention. Take, for example, the Plandemic. Bad science (science in name only) was hyped ad nauseum by the media, financial institutions (EcoHealth Alliance, World Economic Forum, Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation), pharmaceutical corporations and scientific journals and government official paid by them.

Science . . . is dead. Evolution isn't science.

@AkioTsukino


Uh oh. Uh oh!

I'm gonna ignore that for now lol.


Couldn't disagree more. It's observable in its mechanisms, demonstrable across time and most importantly predictive. Multiple, independent lines of evidence converge on this conclusion so you may, if it pleases you, disagree with the conclusion but to call it unscientific is unacceptably dishonest and represents a prejudiced dogma rather than an openness to truth.

And that's where we'll leave the abstract discussion of evolution.
It is in the discussion of evidence that this point can be made one way or the other and i am utterly disinterested in sweeping condemnation and vague denialism.

To that end i invite you back to my thread devoted to the discussion of basic evidence for evolution.

@Pikachu
My suggestion or your reaction?


That seems fairly vague to me. I'm not sure what you mean, but this is a discussion of evolution, if someone decides the abstract discussion of evolution relevant then it will continue. And it likely will.


I don't know what to say. You must be an extremely disinterested person in general. The alternative and possible addition of hypocrisy and dogmatism would be apparent as well. But, whatever. You decide for yourself what you are interested or disinterested in.


Thank you for the invitation. To me the struggle it presents is nonsensical. Of course, a lot of things are nonsensical. Most things probably. Right now I want to concentrate on learning.

@AkioTsukino

That would easier to believe if you didn't claim that evolution is unscientific.
That declaration seems to represent a conclusion, not a desire to learn.

If indeed you DO want to learn about evolution...then why not engage in the thread on the subject which you requested that i make?

Are you getting cold feet?
I'm waiting.


It means i'm utterly disinterested in posting back and forth about how evolution is or isn't scientific.
It means i want to actually deal with the evidence and arguments, not vague, sweeping rejections so that we may demonstrate the scientific or unscientific nature of evolution.


Then you weren't paying attention.
While i set up creationism as the natural antithesis to evolution, the "struggle" that you are presented with there is to make a case for why that evidence does not support evolution or, failing that, to ask questions about why that evidence is demonstrative of evolution.

You say you want to concentrate in learning....so stop dragging your heels.

Let me ask you point blank: Are you going to discuss the evidence i put forward in the thread you requested of me or not?

@Pikachu
How can I put this so that you will finally understand. You. Want. To. Indoctrinate. Me. I. Want. To. Learn. Understand?

If I want to learn that is the conclusion. If I've already drawn a conclusion, including but certainly not limited to, whether or not evolution is unscientific, then I will have to make adjustments accordingly. So why are you so concerned about it? Why did you choose the subject heading and particular forum in the other thread of which you speak? Don't answer those questions here, just be honest with at least yourself and we'll be fine.


This is that thread.


Good! Good!

@AkioTsukino


Gosh, do i?😓
That's a discouraging way to approach someone who is responding to your request to learn.
Are you trying to indoctrinate me by making your case for your position? I don't believe you are...
I encourage you to abandon this adversarial posture and instead assume for the moment that i am engaging in good faith and i will attempt to do the same for you.

Or do you see an invitation to discuss the evidence and the associated arguments as attempted indoctrination?


It's also in the thread you personally requested that i make, a request i obliged.

Let me ask you point blank: Are you going to discuss the evidence i put forward in the thread you requested of me or not?

Please be honest because i believe i only have this one life and i don't want to waste my time with someone who doesn't intend to meet me in honest, direct discourse of the relevant subject matter lol

@Pikachu
Yes. I've told you repeatedly. And the other one. Then there's one that just wants to argue.

Life, ya' know?


Not if they are more interested in indoctrinating me instead of teaching me. Don't worry about what I will do with what I learn. That is up to me. Just teach. Don't worry about whether or not I believe it, worry about whether or not I know it. Am familiar with it. Have learned it.


Who knows? Who cares? Doesn't matter.


Fucking hell.

You teach. I learn. Simple.


I don't care about you. All I ask is you do the same for me. It's data.

Since you will ask one more time, let me save you the effort.


You can post any portion of it here with any amendments you need to make for the stipulation I insist upon. Then I will take it in and ask any questions I need to ask. I may just say thank you for the information. That only means I don't have any questions at this time.

@AkioTsukino


Do you consider it an open-minded approach to education to insist that you KNOW the other person is trying to indoctirrinate you?
You don't have to answer that publicly if you don't want but i hope you take the time to objectively examine your own bias: a crucial element of science and skepticism.


lol kinda controlling, aren't ya bud?

Fine, i don't care. If you're not willing to post in the thread you asked me to make then we can educate you here.

Ok, here's some evidence congruent with evolution. Do you have any reason to declare it unscientific?
Do you have any questions? Objections? Responses?


The Fossil record!!!
Using an evolutionary model we would expect to see life on earth going from less complex to more complex as adaptations compound.

If we look at the fossil record, we see exactly that: Simple invertebrates to fish to reptiles to mammals and so on. These are separated by distinct geological layers. And while we do of course see simple organisms coexisting with complex ones ( just look at an earth worm) we never see something like a ichthyosaur in a fossil bed with trilobites. Nowhere. Ever.
AND we find fossil beds comprised entirely of simple organisms and we never find things like a mosasaur alongside a whale or a triceratops alongside a rhino.
So animal occupying the same habitat and the same niches in the same regions on the planet totally separated in the geologic column.
Exactly what evolution would predict.

P.S. Honestly, i think the evidence for evolution becomes harder to argue against if one wishes to exclude the alternate explanation of a creator. But this appears to be the framework under which you wish to challenge evolution.
And let's do be honest. While I'm sure you earnestly wish to understand evolution better, when you begin with a position of "evolution is not science" then you are necessarily setting yourself in opposition.

@Pikachu
To KNOW it? Let me put it this way. I consider it open-minded to suggest the possibility if it seems apparent to me. It doesn't matter, you know. You can attempt to indoctrinate me all you wish if that is how you want to relate the data. Just don't insist I obediently submit to it.


In other words the predicted paradigm would be demonstrative of the accumulation of more complex life forms as adaptations compound? From simple to complex? What about errors. They would do the same, no?

[media=https://youtu.be/lOfZgf-YecQ]


Show me.


Show me.

@AkioTsukino

Yeah...but you aren't suggesting it, are you? Or at least that is not how you have presented it.
To quote you: " You. Want. To. Indoctrinate. Me."
If you are already convinced that my aim is indoctrination (an inherently dishonest engagement) then i insist you block me right away.
If this is not your earnest conviction then i insist you treat me as if i am engaging in good faith until such time as you have reason to believe otherwise.
So...are you open-minded or are we done here?


I'm not sure what you mean. What are you thinking errors should be doing?


Some creationists believe that the geological column is a figment of evolutionists’ imagination. Yet by visiting places like the Grand Canyon—Grand Staircase region, you can literally climb through the rock layers and see the sequence and patterns of the layers firsthand. .
https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/order-in-the-fossil-record/


most creationists would agree with you that there is a general order of fossil superposition that is consistent around the world. ,
https://creation.com/order-in-the-fossil-record

The arrangement of fossils within rock layers and across the world is highly ordered, and transitional fossils are abundant. While fossil evidence alone does not prove that all life forms are related by common ancestry, the fossil record is consistent with (and highly suggestive of) that conclusion.
https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-does-the-fossil-record-show/

Not sure if that's exactly what you meant but aside from having your enroll in years of earth sciences programs, i think the most realistic thing i can do is show you the consensus that the fossil record is indeed ordered in an undeniable way in the geologic column.
I hope the mix of conventional science sources and creationist sources will convey to you that whatever the interpretation of this data, the order is unequivocal.

Do you have any specific criticisms of the fossil record supporting evolution?

@Pikachu
He seems to be pushing the same agenda he’s complaining about. We give him legitimate definitions and evidence, he “corrupts” to fit his interpretation. Implying that science is a faith. Any continued discussion will be fruitless..

@DocSavage Fruitless. I agree. I'm not going to argue with you anymore. I'm done with this. It's a waste of time. I'm going to talk Bible stuff instead. It isn't possible for you to teach me evolution. You are groupthink, propaganda, xenophobia, religion.

@DocSavage

Yeah i'm getting the sense that he talks a big game about wanting to learn but when he's learning about something with which he disagrees he falls quickly into conspiratorial thinking and denialism.

@AkioTsukino


Agreed.
One can only learn when when is open to learning. When one is determined not to be convinced to the point where they must dismiss challenging information with derogatory buzzwords...all hope of honest discourse is lost.

I had high hopes when we began talking that you would be able to hold up your end of an intellectually honest discussion and i was dismayed to find that under the veneer of intellectualism lay the common, dogmatic rejection of disconfirming evidence typical of the creationist.
Disappointing.
Sorry to say, i've lost interest.

Hit me up if you ever find yourself prepared for an honest examination of the evidence.
Have a pleasant day🙂

@Pikachu
You're either saying that to goad me or you want to believe it because I'm a threat to your world view. I started out as an atheist studying the Bible to debunk it and I became a believer. I started trying to learn evolution, only from militant atheists I meet in online forums and could very well have become a believer in that as well.

It doesn't matter. I see the debate as silly and pointless. I can't learn from atheists because they are too religious and I don't see the point in learning it on my own.

@AkioTsukino


Really? And should i assume the same dishonest motivation from you when you declare that my motivation is to indoctirrinate you?
No?
Why is it so hard for you to encounter an opposing opinion without villainizing it?

I think this will have to be my last post to you until you mature a little in your thinking.
Best of luck.

@Pikachu Very well said

@Pikachu
You do understand that almost everything you and I or anyone else says is opinion, don't you?


If you suspect it, sure, why not?


You still don't get it! You don't understand. In this thread I set aside my beliefs to learn yours and you won't have it. I accepted everything all of you said about evolution. Everything. I only said that I had some reservations about a couple terms, one of which was adaption and I can't even remember the other one.

I even gave an example of where terms can be problematic in a field I'm more familiar with, namely, isolation in molecular biology.

I set those aside as noted and attempted to move on but all I get from you, @DocSavage and @newjaninev2 is harping on the fact that I can't accept your evidence. But I did!

The nerve! The stupidity! Not to mention the pious, dogmatic, tyranny astounds me! It truly does.

@AkioTsukino Then why has the evidence (not opinion... evidence!) not led to even more questions, and broad discussion?

Even just acknowledgement would be nice

@newjaninev2

lol apparently i'm being censored now. 🤣
Was just thanking you for your compliment.
Hope you see this before it's deleted lol