I'm not sure what gives you the idea that I didn't "notice." Also falling back to some kind of vague term like "common sense" is basically you just saying you don't have a point to make and that'd you rather just stick with your opinions, instead of defending them in any meaningful form or critiquing mine. You then flat out admit that "you didn't need to provide any to make my point", which is really you just saying you can't make a point. Why bother to respond?
I clearly labeled what was my personal perspective, and then asked for any kind of credible, objective information.
You called what is far from a fact "indisputable", and then proceeded to label a subject like evolution as baloney.
Nothing you have said addresses the substance of my comment. You just keep insisting that showing one correlation is the same as, say, proving the theory of general relativity. After all it's all equivalent, it's all the scientific method.
These days indignation is a tool of bullying. Yeah just keep being indignant as a way to engage and convince others and then wonder why people still disagree with you.
Maybe next you'll be incredulous that we don't have a scientific understanding of even the development of a wing in evolution. It's at very early stages of conjecture. But don't let that stop you from throwing tantrums when people point it out.
No sorry, nothing personal, but you have no idea what you're writing about, simple as that. You've taken a fundamental misconception about evolution and turned it into a diatribe.
That wasn't an argument. That was pointing out a flaw in the counter-evolution argument.
The fact that we are not aware of any evolutionary advantage conferred by a change yields no information in either direction about the validity of the evolutionary theory.
Except that, as I point out, your explanation is neither obvious nor reasonable (frankly, I'd say it's flat wrong). Yet you introduced it without evidence anyway as a way of saying "What about this?". That's the same technique creationists use to "challenge" evolution. You can't make that argument, logically, with a flawed counter hypothesis.
The only reason I posted is that you got uppity in your final sentence, complaining about journalists lack of statistical sense. Frankly, yours is no better.
Right. My point is that the evidence is there but there's a difficulty in developing or accepting an intuition for evolution given the huge timescales involved in unicellular-to-human evolution, even though it's well-supported by inductive and deductive evidence.
When did you read the book? It seems to me that the ideas within the book now pervade culture in ways that it didn't when it first came out. If you read it recently it could contribute to your feeling of this being common sense. Also because this idea feels like common sense doesn't mean that it was. Evolution is common sense now but it was a revolutionary way to think of species when On The Origin Of Species came out.
Quit being so hostile, if you are not interested in discussion I would recommend not spending time on discussion boards.
You first spoke as if it was an absolute certainty ("This is basic evolutionary theory") and now are saying, "all of the normal caveats apply" which is exactly what I was getting at in my OP thread. The "normal caveats"/edge cases are exactly what this whole discussion is about. Clearly we are speaking past one another, I apologize for my role in whatever went wrong here.
You can't have a reasoned debate about evolution; reasonable people already know it's a fact and don't dispute it. Only unreasonable people are still disputing a basic fact of the world discovered well over 100 years ago.
No, that doesn't put things in perspective at all.
To put things in perspective, a 97% consensus on evolution theory doesn't impact me any way. I can choose whatever I prefer or even refuse to take a position.
The globalist-climatist agenda steals from me via taxation and restricts my freedom, regardless of what I think.
And as I noted in another comment, the consensus is totally irrelevant to begin with because the question isn't whether there are changes or who or what causes them. The manufactured consensus that matters is that undoing the supposed changes is possible and can be forced in a way that doesn't leave me poorer - both of those assumumptions are unproven and very likely false. Put that in your perspective.
I would be interested to see how you think this short video supports the claim you are making here, as it does not mention evolution, common sense or faith, and is ostensibly about how little knowledge one gains just by learning the name of a thing.
I don't think he was making a statement about society. Rather pointing out that when we think of the benefits of evolution, we tend to think of the combined effect over billions of years. But holding a microscope to it on scales like that of human history reveals a cumbersome and nearly imperceptible process. As it is, it offers nothing on any timescale that is meaningful to us.
That's your opinion, not mine; however it's exactly talk like this that has led to most laymen not understanding evolution. They don't get that it's being dumbed down for them and that's not their fault, it's the fault of people who casually anthropomorphize things because they wrongly think it helps to clarify; it does not.
Understanding comes from truth, not casual simplifying lies.
No, you are certainly not correct, although right now I would be happy to balance the very unequal distribution of knowledge you and I have on this subject (although I am far from being an expert myself), because I feel like Richard Dawkins debating evolution with some Christian from Kansas who insists there is no evidence for evolution because that's what they read on a Christian website that scientifically debunks evolution. Seriously, you are so engaged with a topic that you clearly haven't even bothered to read a couple of Wikipedia articles about.
I clearly labeled what was my personal perspective, and then asked for any kind of credible, objective information.
You called what is far from a fact "indisputable", and then proceeded to label a subject like evolution as baloney.
reply