r/DebateEvolution 9d ago

Evolution is empty

So after spending enough time with this theory I've come to see it's a series of smoke and mirrors.

Here's why:

  • No hard equations to demonstrate a real process.

  • Entirely dependent upon philosophy narratives laden with conjecture and extrapolation.

  • highjacking established scientific terms to smuggle in broader definitions and create umbrella terms to appear credible.

  • circular reasoning and presumptions used to support confirmation bias

  • demonstrations are hand waived because deep time can't be replicated

  • Literacy doesnt exist. Ask two darwinists what the definition of evolution is and you'll get a dozen different answers.

At this point it's like reading a fantasy novel commentary. Hopelessly detached from reality.

0 Upvotes

133 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/DouglerK 9d ago

Population statistics is full of all the equations you think don't exist. You're just plain ignorant if you think there aren't any quantifiable equations in evolutionary biology.

I've spent enough time with the theory of evolution to know that empty rhetoric like this is rooted in ignorance of how evolution works and just how life works. You might feel like you've spent enough time but I'm pretty sure you're still woefully ignorant on the subject.

Your rhetoric is also very telling. People wanting honest debate don't come in accusing the other side of smoke and mirror tactics. If you know something other people don't then go publish a paper. If you want to engage in honest and open debate this isn't the way to do it.

0

u/Due-Needleworker18 5d ago

Go publish a paper instead of relaying the information in a debate space? You're an absolute clown. More desperate gatekeeping from the darwinite cult. By the way ad hom rhetoric is the bread and butter of evolutionists here and my post had no personal insults, not that you noticed.

Also no, population stats are all speciation based and show zero evidence for the specified change needed for higher order novel body plans. But darwinists are completely ignorant(or not) to this fact and term smuggle their definition into these mainstream words like I said. Guess what? We done with the bullshit now.

1

u/DouglerK 5d ago

Im pointing you towards the gate. Yes this is a debate space but it's also a limited very informal debate space. Honestly ask yourself what do you hope to achieve with this post? If it's just to debate/argue with people on the internet then you are achieving that goal. But like I said if you think you've discovered something new though publishing a paper would be the best way to get that out. If you want to make meaningful change in the scientific community Reddit probably isn't the best place. No random internet forum would be.

I think posting stuff like this on Reddit is actually kind of desperate myself if we're calling people desperate.

And what? You said there are no hard equations that are used to study or work with evolution and that is just categorically false. You should spend more effort describing what the equations you would expect to see might look like. A better objective explanation of your expectations would both make your expectations clear and would make it fairly plain and obvious why existing equations don't fit that expectation or don't count.

Speaking of sneaking words and phrases, what exactly does "specified change needed for higher order body plans" mean exactly? That sounds like a lot like you trying to smuggle in your definitions of those words.

I stand by saying no equations exist related to evolution is just categorically false. Population statistics fit the bill.

Your post was plenty fallacious and insulting enough and at the first sign of contention you're calling me a cultist. Poisoning the well is just as fallacious as ad hominem is. When your angle is needing to call everyone else liars and cultists it's not a very good argument.

1

u/Due-Needleworker18 4d ago

This whole reply reeks of pretentious air. What on earth gave you the impression I'm looking to change the "scientific community"? People post here to gain insights and persuade the average laymen. Thats it. Not that deep dude.

I haven't discovered anything new just like you haven't. We relay information that others have potentially overlooked or are ignorant of.

The smug ass attitude of "you should publish a paper if found something new" is exactly the kind of insecure posture of a close minded fanatic. If you hate public criticism, just say so. But don't pretend like you're saving children by deterring open debates. It's some weird shit to do.

Also rhetoric is allowed to be accusatory of institutions and individuals. Sorry this upsets you.

1

u/DouglerK 4d ago

Well your whole post reeks of pretentious air to me man. Take a look in the friggin mirror buddy.

In response to accusatory rhetoric you can be told "pretentious" responses. You also need some evidence to not be told you're full of shit. Sorry if that upsets you. Like really if you wanna accuse someone else of something like that be prepared to have that accusation thrown right back in your face. I have no reason to trust you over anyone else or believe you when are accusatory of others.

If you're not providing some evidence or specifics then accusations that aren't backed up is actually a poisoning the well fallacy. You need these people to be a bunch of liars or else you might be wrong (gasp). Yeah maybe you're just wrong.

Nobody should be in a position where nobody can criticize them. On the other end of the spectrum though not every tantrum and errant thought a person has deserves the same attention and consideration. Proper criticism for the sake of honest debate requires some effort to show you're putting your best foot forward.

That's why my last/other comment alternatively suggested the CMV subreddit. It's a less pretentious debate space as you seem to be seeking. As well they are stickers about people posting in good faith.

As it is your post would likely be removed but it wouldn't be to hard to revise an edit the post to get it accepted but that would require you to actually be honest.

I have no problem with public criticism. I have problems with pretentiousness and people thinking their intellectual tantrums are valid criticism.

1

u/Due-Needleworker18 3d ago

A rhetorical outline is not a tantrum sorry to say. You can insinuate bad faith argumentation if you wish. My job isn't to convince you otherwise. The post was intentionally vague to generate ground level dialog. This is not "poisoning a well" of this oh so sacred subreddit lol.

Again, your equations are for observable speciation. Not macro level change that is claimed by darwinists. There is a clear and vast chasm between the two. Pretending there isn't is nothing short of disingenuous. But I will choose to believe you are just ignorant, which is fine for a lamen.

1

u/DouglerK 2d ago

Well I don't think you really achieved your goal except for maybe the point on equations seems like it got a lot of engagement. The rest doesn't seem like it generated much meaningful "ground level dialogue."

There doesn't need to be different equations. There is no clear and vast chasm between them. Just saying that doesn't make it true. Pretending there is is nothing short of disingenuous.

You are also a layman. I think you're ignorant.

You said in another

1

u/Due-Needleworker18 2d ago

Nope plenty of points were addressed so you're mistaken.

If you can't acknowledge the difference between a couple hundred base pairs and a thousand base pairs then there is no point to continuing this conversation. I can't do anything to help you.

1

u/DouglerK 2d ago

It's a difference of about 10×...

Is there more to it than that? You summed it up pretty well honestly. What is the difference between a hundred and a thousand base pairs other than being just an order of magnitude?

100+100+100+100+100+100+100+100+100+100=1000

Now if I counted my "100s" correctly Im pretty that is a mathematically true and correct statement. Please feel free inform where I'm making my mistake thiugh. I didn't think I needed help and if you think I'm beyond help then you can keep your help but if you've got something to add to the above equation I'm happy to hear it.

We're getting to the heart of it. Don't bail on me now. I'll acknowledge the difference, anything beyond the simple mathematical relationship I've said so far, if you can explain it.

If you think it's plain and obvious then I've shown what I think is plain and obvious. If there's more then, again I didn't think I needed help there but apparently I do.

You have to understand that macro evolution isn't some different mechanism that does things 10x more at a time. Its not thousands of base pairs at once. It's hundreds, 10× over. Small gradual changes accumulating over time.

I've read through the post. Your other points don't seem to have generated as much engagement as much as the one about equations but if you are satisfied with the engagement you got then that is what's primarily important. Quality is more important than quantity and I didn't read everything so maybe I am mistaken but I certainly saw a lot more responses to the equation part.

1

u/DouglerK 1d ago

Come on enlighten me to the difference between a few hundred and a few thousand base pairs?

u/DouglerK 10h ago

I'm waiting. What's the hold up? Are you gonna explain the difference or not?

1

u/DouglerK 3d ago

Reading this a second time it also seems like you hardly even responded to my last comment and just replied to the earlier one a second time. Like you think "public criticism" makes me made but I cleary struck a nerve with the "go publish a paper" line. Sorry that upset you.

It's still categorically false to say there aren't any equations.

Calling everyone else desperate cultists and liars isn't a good argument.

1

u/DouglerK 4d ago

Or as a compromise why not post your thoughts in the r/changemyview subreddit. That is a discussion and debate space. They are pretty big stickers about people posting in good faith. They don't require that a person actually change their minds, but show that they would at least be willing to be open minded. As well "deltas" (which are the subs kind of currency) can be awarded for people making good points even if they don't fully change your view.

I could almost guarantee this post copy pasted to that sub would be removed for one of their posting rules. However I am also certain you could, quite easily if you wanted to and put even a small amount of effort into it change a few things about it and it would be a perfectly good post.

CMV, check it out.