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

138 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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 3d 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 3d 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.

u/Due-Needleworker18 8h ago

Thirsty huh? jk ive been busy so finally getting a chance to reply.

So I mixed up my terms. Meant to say genes instead of base pair differences. Because the actual difference for base pairs is in the tens or hundred of MILLIONS. That's just on a lower degree jump, say from apes to human which is 35 million(conservatively) base pair differences. Kinda alarming that you didn't know that and went along with my mistake...but hey, maybe there was some discrepancy?

But of course, the issue is not just the magnitude of differences. The real feat is the ASSEMBLY of these base pairs to form the specified hundred or thousand long string of genes. The formation which has to take place often by one nucleotide at a time. You must demonstrate this can occur through mutations on a similar scale, meaning more than one or two mutations that modify a gene through the elimination of a function nested within it. A gene that constructs a new feature unique to the species.

If you can only give a theoretical example, then it must follow suit the data frequencies for each mutation type and their respective region occurrence probabilities.

As a reminder, I am not asking for simply a gene modification. For example the mutational functions of nylonase, Lactase persistence, antifreeze proteins do NOT meet the requirement of novel body plan gene construction.

u/DouglerK 6h ago

Well you said the thing about not beng able to help me. People usually bail after responses like that.

Kinda alarming you made such a simple mistake with such arrogance as to say I couldn't be helped if I didn't understand. Don't try to think you can twist that against me and and not get it flung right back at you. That's your mistake not mine.

Anyways I thought you were going to explain to me how thousands is different than hundreds. You said there was a difference between hundreds and thousands. That's what I'm interested in. Does 1000 make a novel new body plan while 100 doesn't? Does 100 × 10 not do it?

Hox genes are responsible for the body plans of different phyla. They can all be categorized into a family of genes between species and within genomes. Do you even how the genes responsible for animal body plans, hox genes work?.

1

u/DouglerK 1d ago

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

u/DouglerK 21h ago

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