“Intelligence,” OUT OF NOTHINGNESS!

[Esquilax]

It would be better if you show why science seems to disagree with me and why E=mc2 is not an appropriate scientific answer. This way your words would get more weight in them.

Why bother? As demonstrated by a part later on in this very post I'm quoting, whenever someone does show you science that you don't like, you just wave it away by asserting that it's "not science." This is the issue here: you're just dismissing whatever disagrees with what you want to believe, and emphasizing the small amount that agrees with you.

The examples that you had given from the web are not scientific facts. On the contrary, I had given substantial scientific reasoning against Theory of Evolution. You can review my responses in case you have missed something.

So, I spent all that time showing you real evidence, with sources that go back to actual scientific studies rooted all throughout them, and you've just dismissed them with an assertion. Given this, you haven't addressed my rebuttals at all, and I have rebutted every one of your arguments.

Okay! Then from where these laws of physics came?

Who says they need to come from anywhere? Why can't they just be features of the universe?

“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or amilies, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.”
Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 302.

Sorry, science has moved on since 1859; we've found many more fossils since then, some of which we were able to predict what they would be, and in which layer, based on evolutionary models, and all of them have fit into the theory perfectly fine. You don't get to bring up Darwin's intellectual honesty from over a century ago as if things haven't changed since, you quote mining prick.

“When trying to unravel the origins of the animal phyla . . . the hardest to examine is the phase between the actual cladogenic origin of a phylum and the time that it acquired its first phylum-specific characteristic(s). Even if we have fossils from this phase in a phylum’s history, we will not be able to prove their kinships at the level of phyla.”
Marshall and Valentine, “The Importance of Preadapted Genomes in the Origin of the Animal Bodyplans and the Cambrian Explosion,” 1190, emphasis added.

So what? Again, you're quoting from a paper written by people who accept evolution and actually feature it in their writing; if we were to accept, as you believe, that evolution isn't true, then what this means is that you've quoted from an incorrect paper as support for your position. If we accept your position as true, then this source cannot be used as evidence in support of that position because it's wrong. If we accept my position as true then the paper functions as intended. You just got logicked, son.

“This really is evolution’s big unanswered question. Darwin talks about the Cambrian explosion in the Origin of Species back in 1859 and he was puzzled by how quickly organisms appeared. We like to know what were the triggers that caused this real explosion of life.”
Bruce Lieberman University of Kansas

Lots of things wrong here! First of all, appealing to an "unanswered question" as support for your position is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Second, Lieberman studies evolution, he accepts that it happens, so the same paradox applies as above- if you're quoting him to prove that evolution is wrong then he's wrong too and thus not an accurate source on this issue- and he clearly doesn't agree with your quote mine of him, so that's dishonest of you. Thirdly, and this is strange, I can't find your quote anywhere but creationist sources; I can't even find the original source for it...

Yes, you are right that certain theories are confirmed by the advancement of science but that is not the case with evolution. I gave you decent number of reasons, which only confirm why theory of evolution is still a mere postulate and not a scientific fact.

And I rebutted every one, meaning this assertion you've made here is yet another "nuh uh!" If evidence doesn't continually confirm evolution perhaps you'd like to explain why the entirety of the mainstream scientific community, including the theists among them, continues to accept it and operate under the premise that it's true? To say nothing of modern medicine, and so on?

What is your counter proposition to the thirty years old source that you rejected bluntly without any recourse?

Probably "Things have moved on since then," coupled with "one source doesn't destroy the scientific consensus against that source." Cherry picking your data doesn't get you anywhere, but it does make you look desperate.

You are again spot-on that theory of evolution had enjoyed criticism free environment for about more than 100 years. But, did you ever give a thought why scientists are not criticising theory of evolution even when there are humongous loopholes in it? Why teachers are not allowed to discuss gaps in the theory? I will tell you the reason.

Oh, here we go with the bullshit conspiracy crap.

The Origin of species was an instant success, but its popularity due more to the ideological implications of the book rather than its scientific worth. Darwin’s ideas provided considerable support for the materialistic philosophy, which deny the existence of God. Secular states are doing everything (by any means and at any cost) to abstain social structure from the idea of God at whatsoever level to favour secularism.

Citation needed.

You do realize that you sound insane, right now, right? If the best you can do to explain away the massive consensus on this- and I'd remind you that christian scientists are also universally in on this, where they're actually real scientists- is to whine about everyone being against you, well... that's not actually an argument. That's toddler logic; everyone disagrees with you because they're against you! Give me a break.

You have given me tons of references and when I gave you one, it is a foul play. You asked something from this decade and I provided what you asked for. Simple as that.

Can you understand why I might be wary about downloading mysterious large files at the behest of strangers on the internet?

What's so hard about just summarizing the arguments presented, and making reference to the actual, peer reviewed science (not single quote mined paragraphs formulated to say the opposite of what the source actually says) involved?

When scientists today, express an overwhelming level of confidence that evolution is true it reflects several realities. One reality is that for the most part evolution has not been subject to critique for over a hundred years not because it is a perfect an unarguable science but because of political reasons.

Evolution is under constant criticism, both from within the scientific community and from religious sources too; if the evidence against it was as rock solid and obvious as you claim then it would be the work of but a moment for your side to present it using the multi-million dollar media powers the christian market possesses. The fact that you haven't is sort of a hint.

Oh, and these mysterious "political reasons"? Come on, man. The majority of the US government is christian, are you kidding me?

That means the scientific process has effectively been short-circuited. The normal corrective process in science where some scientists observed problems with the current theory, they analyse it and changes are made where appropriate. That process is not operating as far as theory of evolution is concerned. Therefore, for the most part Theory of evolution has survived without that type of critique. Many people assume that theory of evolution has a solid foundation simply because they are not hearing scientific critiques.

Assertion, assertion, assertion.

Please, give your counter argument on the following statement.

To produce any fundamentally new biological forms these mutations would—at the very least—have to produce a number of new proteins. But natural selection can act only on what mutations first generate. Thus, for mutation and selection to produce new functional proteins or protein folds—the smallest unit of selectable function—new proteins or protein folds must first arise by chance—that is, by random mutation. If the probability of this were extremely low—beyond the reach of available probabilistic resources—then this would undermine the plausibility of the neo-Darwinian mechanism.

This first part is just factually wrong: mutations happen, every generation, without fail. You are not a perfect clone of your parents, because your genes mutated as they were replicating. That's mutation, and it happened to you. False starting premise, means the rest of the statement is non-functional. Done.

How rare or common are functional protein folds within their corresponding amino acid–sequence space? If functional sequences were common enough for mutations to stumble upon them relatively easily (within the time required for relevant evolutionary transitions), mutation and selection might be able to build otherwise extremely improbable structures in small incremental steps. On the other hand, if functional proteins are extremely rare within sequence space, such that mutations will not have a realistic chance of finding them in the available time, selection will have little or nothing to work on, undermining its ability to produce biological information.

It is a demonstrable fact that mutations happen. The average human infant has at least sixty, sometimes upwards of two hundred, mutations at birth, and develops more over time. Done again.

Second, Ken Ham has nothing to do with this argument.

He kinda does, when you present a source that all the real scientists review as shoddy work, and the ideologically driven conmen rave about as brilliant.

Third, Theory of Evolution is one of the most important tool to support atheism. It was perhaps that reason the founder of dialectical materialism Karl Marx dedicated his book Das Kapital to Charles Darwin. On the cover he wrote “Given to Charles Darwin from a devoted admirer.” Atheist were the first who adopted Theory of Evolution to boost up their ideology to the firmament.

No, the lack of evidence for a god is the most important tool to support atheism. There are atheist groups that don't accept evolution, which blows your claim out of the water.

If Theory of Evolution collapse that would give a hard blow over atheism and secularism. Sure! you can be atheist even if Theory of Evolution falls apart.

That's an argument from ignorance too; if you could prove evolution false right now that wouldn't be evidence for a god existing. Can you go one sentence without a fallacy?

Did Darwin know anything about Genetics?

Darwin observed the physical expression of those genetic changes.

Is there any scientific endorsement that makes evident “Evolution concerns genetic changes over time in populations?”

Considering that genetics are the dictator of physical traits in an organism, what else would you think was behind evolution? Do you know what population genetics is?

I know what I am talking and I am giving you scientific evidences, which you are flatly rejecting without giving any counter scientific recourse. What you have given so far is only “ifs” or fragments of so-called scientific information that is not science at all.

What the fuck are you talking about? I've been presenting real, peer reviewed sources all along, and you're the one sitting here dismissing them all as "not science" without providing why! Could you be any more up your own ass on this?

You have used two “ifs” in that concise statement of yours. Science is not “assumptions”

Given that we're talking in the abstract and not about a specific case, it'd be inappropriate to use another word. I can't talk about what did happen when we're talking in abstractions without a subject at hand.

Have a look on the following two articles.

Got any reputable sources instead? Ones that don't premise their objections on the faulty claim that this was all just random?

Is there any mechanism for “NATURALLY?” Even if everything is happening automatically then again through which mechanism? Perhaps, everything is happening out from nothing!

Argument from ignorance.

Please read Wikipedia carefully which says;

“This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries.”

Of course it's an incomplete list; aside from the fact that new discoveries will continue to happen, nobody is saying that we should expect a complete lineage in every case, that's absurd. But appealing to the incompleteness of the list in order to pretend that the evidence on it doesn't exist is, again, an argument from ignorance.

Maybe you're just ignorant in general.

Further it goes on

“This is a tentative list of transitional fossils” …
“As noted already by Darwin, the fossil record is incomplete.”

Do you understand how rare fossil formation is? That's why this is said, you blithering imbecile.

I’ll give you few quotes from Darwin to contemporary palaeontologists without inserting my own commentary. If you’ll find is insufficient then I’ll give you more.

First you quote a book from 1859, and then you quote a guy who's been dead for over fifteen years.

What Wikipedia is showing as transitional fossils are few species that by no scientific means be recognised as transitional fossils. They are few links of a ginormous missing chain of life.

"Nuh uh!" still isn't an argument, especially since the trained scientists disagree with your uneducated ass.

Unfortunately, father of evolution said something different.

“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivance for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”
The Origin of Species, John Murray, p. 186.

And now we're done, you dishonest fuck. This, you awful, ignorant conman, is one of the most well known quote mines of Darwin's entire work. Here's the full quote:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility"

And here's a source for that. You abhorrent fucking liar, Darwin is actually saying that this idea is counter-intuitive, but that so called "common sense" shouldn't blind one to the evidence that the eye has, in fact, evolved. What you did was stop the quote in the middle of the paragraph to make it say something different than what was actually said, and I demand that you retract this vile lie and apologize for this dishonesty before we continue further. Until then, I will have nothing further to say to you.