Wortfish wrote:

campermon wrote:

Wortfish wrote:
I can let someone else do it: <snip>

I was trying to find out your comprehension of this topic.

Hey ho

Well, I prefer to let the scientists speak for themselves.

There is also the matter of the whole proofreading/editing process in molecular biology. It is paradoxical that the editing enzymes that correct replication errors are themselves believed to have evolved from the very errors that they edit out! https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6234436/

That abstract was from 1984. That was 36 years ago.

That's a long time in science.

Are you sure that no progress has been made since? I ask you, because you make out that you're confident in this subject.

Wortfish wrote:Well, I prefer to let the scientists speak for themselves.

You mean like where you insisted on an exceedingly uncharitable interpretation of a sentence in a scientific paper,where I contacted the authors to confirm that you were, in fact, misrepresenting their position?

Oh man, can't believe I missed that

Wortfish wrote:I had expected the evidence and arguments for evolution to be much more water-tight. Instead, I found a leaky boat.

So, let's take this from your OP as an example of your finding against evolution:

Wortfish wrote:6. The biogeographical distribution of species and the physical isolation of species provides compelling evidence for evolution. The marsupials of Australia, for example, show how an isolated region seems to produce unique animals that are not found elsewhere. (Score: 3)

Counter: Biogeographical anomalies may be caused by migration rather than by evolution restricted to a particular location on earth. African and Asian great apes, for example, are very similar anatomically but live in very different habitats and have different lifestyles. Extinction can also explain why some species are geographically restricted: Lions used to live in Greece and the Balkans 2000 years ago. (Score:4)

So what you've done here is noted that what we observe in reality is consistent with and explained by evolutionary theory. You've then noted that other explanations are possible, without evaluating the credibility of those other explanations.

After all that, you've decided that in terms of whether each theory explains geographic diversity "maybe" beats "yes", 4 to 3.

So much winning! We're going to get sick of all the winning! Wortfish has the best points! It was a landslide in the Points College the likes of which has never been seen, even though all the pundits reckoned Evolution would win. Evolution won the science vote, but it's the Points College that determines the winner!

What Wortfish and his fellow apologists will never admit (possibly not even to themselves) is that they do not approach evolution, or indeed any science, with an objective mind.

Everything they look at is seen through the lens of pre-conceived bias towards Godditit. Every disingenuous selection of facts, every breathtaking dismissal of a mountain of evidence against their proposition, every desperate clutching of straws that may support their drowning philosophy, every tortuous argument erected in defiance of Occam, all of it demonstrates their utter lack of objectivity. It’s so glaringly obvious to everyone who isn’t pre-conditioned to look for God’s hand everywhere. Obvious to everyone except the poor sap who is trapped in a mental prison of their own making.

They can never look at the world around them with an open mind and grasp how much more amazing our world is than the pathetic, tiny celestial village dreamt up by the limited imagination of Bronze Age peasants. See how they squirm and twist to try to convince us that this sad, desultory excuse for a universe ruled by an invisible psychopath is the best explanation we have. I feel sorry for them, I truly do.

The popularity of Lion Moussaka in ancient Greece explains why there are no lions now. (Score: 272)

A fear of deep water sailing among Australian fauna adequately explains the relative lack of marsupials in the rest of the world. (Score: 176)

Well I'm convinced!

Blackadder wrote:What Wortfish and his fellow apologists will never admit (possibly not even to themselves) is that they do not approach evolution, or indeed any science, with an objective mind.

Everything they look at is seen through the lens of pre-conceived bias towards Godditit. Every disingenuous selection of facts, every breathtaking dismissal of a mountain of evidence against their proposition, every desperate clutching of straws that may support their drowning philosophy, every tortuous argument erected in defiance of Occam, all of it demonstrates their utter lack of objectivity. It’s so glaringly obvious to everyone who isn’t pre-conditioned to look for God’s hand everywhere. Obvious to everyone except the poor sap who is trapped in a mental prison of their own making.

They can never look at the world around them with an open mind and grasp how much more amazing our world is than the pathetic, tiny celestial village dreamt up by the limited imagination of Bronze Age peasants. See how they squirm and twist to try to convince us that this sad, desultory excuse for a universe ruled by an invisible psychopath is the best explanation we have. I feel sorry for them, I truly do.

I have lots of points to evolutionist arguments. My scoring was fair, balanced and objective.

SafeAsMilk wrote:Well I'm convinced!

You shouldn't lion is gamey as all hell and the ancient Greek, never great carnivores in the first place did not relish it.

Lion Moussaka led to the extinction of lions in Greece only after the Turkish conquest.

Wortfish wrote:My scoring was fair, balanced and objective.

Yes, we know you think that but, anyone reading your post can see that is not the case. Most of your pro-creationist points hinge on appeals to incredulity and your pro-evolution points demonstrate your lack of understanding of the science.

Regardless of what you think, it is clear that you are neither qualified enough nor impartial enough to carry out this exercise with any credibility.

Sendraks wrote:

Wortfish wrote:My scoring was fair, balanced and objective.

Yes, we know you think that but, anyone reading your post can see that is not the case. Most of your pro-creationist points hinge on appeals to incredulity and your pro-evolution points demonstrate your lack of understanding of the science.

Regardless of what you think, it is clear that you are neither qualified enough nor impartial enough to carry out this exercise with any credibility.

Fine. You weigh the 7 arguments and score each accordingly. Don't just tell me I am wrong and not provide an alternative.

campermon wrote:
That abstract was from 1984. That was 36 years ago.

That's a long time in science.

Are you sure that no progress has been made since? I ask you, because you make out that you're confident in this subject.

The only thing proposed since then may be ribozymes that can proofread instead of proteins: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166488/

Still doesn't get away from the problem of assuming mistakes can generate mechanisms that limit mistakes from happening.

Wortfish wrote:

Blackadder wrote:What Wortfish and his fellow apologists will never admit (possibly not even to themselves) is that they do not approach evolution, or indeed any science, with an objective mind.

Everything they look at is seen through the lens of pre-conceived bias towards Godditit. Every disingenuous selection of facts, every breathtaking dismissal of a mountain of evidence against their proposition, every desperate clutching of straws that may support their drowning philosophy, every tortuous argument erected in defiance of Occam, all of it demonstrates their utter lack of objectivity. It’s so glaringly obvious to everyone who isn’t pre-conditioned to look for God’s hand everywhere. Obvious to everyone except the poor sap who is trapped in a mental prison of their own making.

They can never look at the world around them with an open mind and grasp how much more amazing our world is than the pathetic, tiny celestial village dreamt up by the limited imagination of Bronze Age peasants. See how they squirm and twist to try to convince us that this sad, desultory excuse for a universe ruled by an invisible psychopath is the best explanation we have. I feel sorry for them, I truly do.

I have lots of points to evolutionist arguments. My scoring was fair, balanced and objective.

Dunning Kruger FTW.

Wortfish wrote:

Still doesn't get away from the problem of assuming mistakes can generate mechanisms that limit mistakes from happening.

This sentence makes no sense WRT the science. There is no such thing a a "mistake" in genetics. Are you talking about an incorrect transcription?

felltoearth wrote:

Wortfish wrote:I have lots of points to evolutionist arguments. My scoring was fair, balanced and objective.

Dunning Kruger FTW.

That is the least objective use of the word "objective" I have ever seen.

Wortfish wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

Wortfish wrote:My scoring was fair, balanced and objective.

Yes, we know you think that but, anyone reading your post can see that is not the case. Most of your pro-creationist points hinge on appeals to incredulity and your pro-evolution points demonstrate your lack of understanding of the science.

Regardless of what you think, it is clear that you are neither qualified enough nor impartial enough to carry out this exercise with any credibility.

Fine. You weigh the 7 arguments and score each accordingly. Don't just tell me I am wrong and not provide an alternative.

You troll badly. You know no one has to provide an alternative. No one agreed to do that. You started a thread unprompted to offer this bilge. That’s it.

Wortfish wrote:Fine. You weigh the 7 arguments and score each accordingly. Don't just tell me I am wrong and not provide an alternative.

The only reason I would engage in such a fatuous exercise would be to satisfy myself I could do a better job, whilst incorporating critique and observations from the members here more knowledgeable on evolution than I.

You've demonstrated time and again, both an unwillingness to listen to others and an abject failure to grasp even the simpler aspects of evolutionary theory, so providing an alternative would serve no purpose. You'd just ignore it or misunderstand, doubling down to claim your own work was better, regardless of what anyone here said or provided by way of evidence.

You've been schooled on this subject numerous times, with the same blithe ignorance in response. So why would this trip on the Troll-Go-Round be any different this time?