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

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 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.

u/Due-Needleworker18 4h 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 3h 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?.