Evolution offshoot

#1
I appreciate that you and some others have a strong belief in Darwinian evolution and that the evidence for it is overwhelming. I disagree. To the contrary, there are plenty of good arguments against it and much more evidence against it than there is to support it. However, that is o/t, so replies on that subject will be deleted or moved to their own thread.

You seem to hold assumptions about reincarnation cases that conflict with assumptions you have about other things. First, the figure of about two years that you mention is an average, not a fixed limit. Some cases have the previous personality dying as much as three years after the birth of the reincarnated child who recalls that life. In those cases, the recollections of the previous life do not start until the previous personality had died, but the child who makes the statements has already been alive for up to several years. Other cases have gaps of decades or even hundreds of years. The problem with the really long time spans is that most previous personalities cannot be verified beyond about a hundred years. Even sixty years or so can be a serious problem thanks to destruction of records during various wars. This means that validated cases would have a lower average because cases with long intervals cannot be checked.

AP
Well, we're not going to come to an agreement on evolution.

However, if the skeptics are going to be at all convinced by psi at the very least, evolution is off the table, we should just not discuss it.
 
#2
Well, we're not going to come to an agreement on evolution.

However, if the skeptics are going to be at all convinced by psi at the very least, evolution is off the table, we should just not discuss it.
When you talk of 'evolution', RP, do you equate this to the "Darwinian evolution" that Andy was careful to enunciate?
 
#3
When you talk of 'evolution', RP, do you equate this to the "Darwinian evolution" that Andy was careful to enunciate?
Yes. The evidence for it is overwhelming. That is not to say there is no psi or whatever, but evolution is true, no doubt about it, and according to IM, it is perfectly compatible with the filter theory.
 
#4
Yes. The evidence for it is overwhelming. That is not to say there is no psi or whatever, but evolution is true, no doubt about it, and according to IM, it is perfectly compatible with the filter theory.
But if the filter theory is anything near correct, then the behavior of organisms will be substantially influenced by whatever incoming influences they filter out for themselves from the source.

In that case, natural mutations, natural selection and (indeed) any entire-natural causal story will tell far short of the whole story. We should now be talking about Wallace's evolution, not Darwin's evolution!
 
#5
But if the filter theory is anything near correct, then the behavior of organisms will be substantially influenced by whatever incoming influences they filter out for themselves from the source.

In that case, natural mutations, natural selection and (indeed) any entire-natural causal story will tell far short of the whole story. We should now be talking about Wallace's evolution, not Darwin's evolution!
What exactly is the difference between Wallace and Darwin's theories?
 
#6
#7
Evolution is a very slippery word. Darwinist have hijacked it and use it interchangeably on all scales so that any change is then proof of the grand darwinian claim that has never been observed.

The evidence supporting Neo Darwinism is weak and in places where it counts completely non existent. Nothing but trivial point mutations can be attributed to it. Only loss of function that can in fact be beneficial. Even then it is becoming apparent that mutations, ones that matter at least are not entirely random. What the last few decades have shown is that evolutionary change only occur within existing cellular functions. There is no evidence for evolution occuring within cells without the full compliment of DNA, RNA, enzymes and proteins. Darwinism cannot explain the emergence of novelty. Only things that already exist can evolve. Furthermore there is no evidence for the main grandiose Darwinian claim that these meager point mutations can accumulate to large scale morphological changes. The Cambrian explosion is testament to that, and Darwin himself knew it. Not even the emergence of a single gene can be attributed to it. This may sound shocking but it is true.

I could post hundreds of studies showing the extreme limits of darwinian evolution and have before at skeptiko. It consists of nothing but speculation and just so stories. But here is one that sums up the state of darwinian evolutuon, in short it is dead.

The 200th anniversary of Darwin and the 150th jubilee of the Origin of Species prompt a new look at evolutionary biology. The 1959 Origin centennial was marked by the consolidation of the Modern Synthesis. The edifice of the Modern Synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair. The hallmark of the Darwinian discourse of 2009 is the plurality of evolutionary processes and patterns. Nevertheless, glimpses of a new synthesis might be discernible in emerging universals of evolution.
The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution (Box 1). So, not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/

Evidence overwhelming? Yeah you hear that a lot, but when it comes down to details it reverts to speculative stories with no empirical support.
What exactly is this overwhelming evidence? Keep in mind many of us do think evolution happens and evolution does not equate to Darwinism.
 
Last edited:
#8
Evolution is a very slippery word. Darwinist have hijacked it and use it interchangeably on all scales so that any change is then proof of the grand darwinian claim that has never been observed.
One of my sons is about to take his GCSEs (UK school leaving examinations). I would dearly like to have a discussion with him about shortcomings in Darwinian evolutionary theory, but have avoided the subject. Anything less than complete acceptance of it in his biology tests will mark him down as a 'saurus riding young earth creationist nut, and as he's someone with a good understanding of the subject, I wouldn't want to see him marked down. Chances are overwhelming that the examiner, and exam setter, will be unreconstructed materialist skeptics whose idea of evolution is nothing less than blind chance and large time scales, and I believe my son should pander to their myths, at least for the duration of the exam.
 
#10
Yes. The evidence for it is overwhelming. That is not to say there is no psi or whatever, but evolution is true, no doubt about it, and according to IM, it is perfectly compatible with the filter theory.
radicalpolitik,

You should read the book Darwin's Doubt by Stephen Meyer. He doesn't say evolution doesn't happen and he doesn't say the mechanisms of Neo-Darwinisim don't happen in nature. But he shows how, when acting alone, they are more than likely to be utterly insufficient to get the job of evolution done.

You'll also learn that evolutionary biologists in the field are also recognizing the shortcomings of Neo-Darwinism more and more and have developed alternative models.

You might end up agreeing that Darwinian evolution is far from a done deal, at this point.
 
#11
radicalpolitik,

You should read the book Darwin's Doubt by Stephen Meyer. He doesn't say evolution doesn't happen and he doesn't say the mechanisms of Neo-Darwinisim don't happen in nature. But he shows how, when acting alone, they are more than likely to be utterly insufficient to get the job of evolution done.
This is prejudice on my part, but extremely wary of someone who advocates ID.

You'll also learn that evolutionary biologists in the field are also recognizing the shortcomings of Neo-Darwinism more and more and have developed alternative models.

You might end up agreeing that Darwinian evolution is far from a done deal, at this point.
This does interest me, could you point me to these biologists. Regards.
 
#12
This is prejudice on my part, but extremely wary of someone who advocates ID.
To be honest, I was too a bit, but try the book and I think you'll see he makes some pretty damn good arguments. He also references the scientific literature throughout the book, so you can fact check everything he says.

This does interest me, could you point me to these biologists. Regards.
Well, they're mentioned in the book, so you'll have to read it to find out .... hehe ;-)
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#13
You should read the book Darwin's Doubt by Stephen Meyer. He doesn't say evolution doesn't happen and he doesn't say the mechanisms of Neo-Darwinisim don't happen in nature. But he shows how, when acting alone, they are more than likely to be utterly insufficient to get the job of evolution done.
You should also read the critiques of Darwin's Doubt. You know, just in case Meyer doesn't know what he's talking about in some areas.

He also references the scientific literature throughout the book, so you can fact check everything he says.
Assuming that you believe his references are unbiased.

~~ Paul
 
#15
You should also read the critiques of Darwin's Doubt. You know, just in case Meyer doesn't know what he's talking about in some areas.


Assuming that you believe his references are unbiased.

~~ Paul
Meyer's is all-knowing Paul. ;-) kidding, of course

Well, some of his references are to the scientific literature and to work that I guess you could say is in opposition to his, i.e. it's not just to other sources that also support ID.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#16
Well, some of his references are to the scientific literature and to work that I guess you could say is in opposition to his, i.e. it's not just to other sources that also support ID.
Yes, he has some perfectly good references, but that does not guarantee perfectly good understanding or interpretation.

You can keep track here:

http://dododreams.blogspot.com/2013/09/open-wide.html

~~ Paul
 
#17
The Reviewer Who Cannot Remember That Previous Reviews of Darwin's Doubt Have Already Been Answered

John Pieret is only a blogger as far as I can tell, not a scholar in any field. He received congratulations for rounding up hostile reviews of Darwin's Doubt -- without anywhere acknowledging that we have been assiduously demolishing them pretty much as they appear. Again, it's like these guys experience a kind of memory reset when they come across information they don't like, as if they can't retain displeasing data so that it is sloughed off almost as soon as it is encountered. See "More Evidence of Darwinian Short-Term Memory Loss."
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/a_taxonomy_of_e077351.html

Yeah, they do suffer from memory loss don't they Paul.

They can't even remember which forums they are not allowed to post in.

To fully investigate one would have to read the book, investigate the citations, listen to the rebuttals. It would also help to have some basic knowledge of current evolutionary thinking and it's history. That is what I would suggest.

You fail on all those. Including following the rules of the forum.

It is difficult not to see how flawed the critiques are once you have done you homework and read the counters, they most certainly get demolished and are supported with citations in most cases completely refuting the empty attacks. Some are just beyond stupid even resorting to critiquing punctuation. Remember the elipse? haha, classic, thanks for that one Paul. Someone checking their facts would not have looked so stupid by jumping the gun and supporting that one!

Be sure they all incite adhom attacks and other logical fallacies though. Yes I would reccomend looking at both sides and things do become pretty clear.

Please stop breaking the rules, those rules make skeptiko a better place sorry to say.
 
Last edited:
C

chuck.drake

#19
This was Alex's post about the bannings:

Here is a list of folks I've asked to stay in the BvS forum until we sort out our plans (pls suggest additions/deletions):
- Paul
- Fls
- Arouet (when/if he comes back)
- Kay
- Steve001
- Malf
- Dakota Rider
He always says confine yourself to the CD forum when banning someone. I don't know where the list of forums came from that you have in your thread.
 
C

chuck.drake

#20
Why are the skeptics banned? Why not just have a secret haven for proponents and let them go everywhere else? Otherwise it just becomes a circle jerk. I might disagree wholeheartedly with the skeptics on several of the issues, but they sure as shit should have a right to say what they want.
We are hijacking the thread. There was a huge other thread about this last week that I thought you participated in. If you really want to rehash it then start another thread.
 
Top