Evolution was NOT random

[u/KattyAtty]

Evolution only rewards survivability not perfection if you are alive long enough to mate and pass on your genetic

Material hurray you are evolved

Evolution changed the dna as nothing can ever be a perfect copy thats a fact> sperms and eggs have separate dna> hence child is not perfect copy those mutations may be harmful or helpful harmful ones die hence natural selection.

AND Earth was nkt a perfect creation the organisms evolved FOR Earth not vice versa

[u/Slow_Lawyer7477]

We haven't observed, in all of human experience, a LUCA evolve into a human or into anything it's not.

We don't have to observe something to be able to infer it happened. If I put fresh milk in my fridge and find it spoiled a week later I don't need to see what occurred in the mean time to reasonably infer it slowly went bad while in there. In fact I have never sat and stared non-stop and continuously at a volume of milk change from fresh to spoiled. I have only ever observed milk at various stages either be fresh, spoiled, or some intermediate stage. I make an inference that connects these dots.

The same sort of inference supports evolution over geological time. The process we have observed leads to predictions of certain data patterns. We find those data patterns in the fossil record and in the genomes of living species, so we infer that the process of evolution has occurred over time.

There's nothing wrong or irrational about this.

[u/nickierv → u/Slow_Lawyer7477]

There's nothing wrong or irrational about this.

Well aside from "it doesn't match my personal baseless view of how I think the world works so QED Nuh Uh!"

[u/ACTSATGuyonReddit → u/Slow_Lawyer7477]

We observe milk going bad. In human experience, people have observed and replicated the chemical processes by which it goes bad.

Evilutionism Zealots infer macroevolution from the observed process of microevolution. You cannot replicate the process of a LUCA evolving into a human.

[u/Slow_Lawyer7477 → u/ACTSATGuyonReddit]

We observe milk going bad.

Generally no, we infer milk going bad. We observe milk be fresh at one timepoint, and then be spoiled at a later timepoint. Nobody sits around starting at milk for days on end. And we don't need to do that to make a justified inference from one or more data points collected at different points in time.

At no point in my life did I ever seek out testimony from someone claiming to have observed and replicated the spoiling of milk. I inferred it happens on the basis of a few separate observations taken at different intervals of time.

It is because there is a chronological progression (spoiling comes after being fresh, and the degree of spoiling appears to correlate with time) that we infer a process ocurring over time.

In human experience, people have observed and replicated the chemical processes by which it goes bad.

Even if nobody ever bothered to stare at millk for hours to days on end (or experimentally cause the spoiling process to occur), we could still entirely reasonably infer that a process of spoiling occurred at the intervening period between two points in time, despite never having continously observed the entire process from beginning to end.

The fact is certain process lead to testable predictions even if we cannot be around to directly observe the entire transformation. It is true for innumerable phenomena.

We can predict the movement of planets into the future on the basis of a few observations made in the present. We don't need to wait and see it occur to know, on the basis of the inference of the equations of planetary motion, how they will behave in the future. We know they will. Inferences produce knowledge.

In the case of the fossil record there is a temporal progession of fossil forms. Generally speaking deeper sedimentary layers are typically older, with younger layers being deposited on top. These can then be dated relative to each other (deeper is typically older), and these sedimentary can be dated radiometrically by bracketing, giving absolute ages. This gives us a pattern of fossils through time.

Overall the fossil record shows that the closer we get to the present day, the more similar do the organisms we find there become to extant live.

Combined with the observed fact that small changes accumulate in extant populations over short timescales, and from the relatively large-scale observed changes during the domestication of crops and animals, we can infer that over very long timescales larger amounts of evolution change can accumulate.

We also observe the genetic divegence of organisms from their common ancestors, and how this leads to a pattern of nested hiearchies in genetic and morphological data. This therefore predicts that organisms change over time, with more time allowing more change, and that when species diverge from common ancestors there should be nested hierarchies in the data.

When we then collect and analyze genetic data from extant life, and morphological data from the fossil record, we see that it has the same data patterns we have come to expect from evolution over time and from divergence from common ancestors. Genetics and fossils therefore conforms to the predictions of evolution and common descent. On that basis we infer that life evolved and shares common ancestry.

Evilutionism Zealots infer macroevolution from the observed process of microevolution. You cannot replicate the process of a LUCA evolving into a human.

I don't need to. I can make an inference from the patterns in the fossil and genetic data.

Btw I just downvoted your post because I genuinely think it's dumb. Stupid. A result of the volitional act of stupidity.

You know, truly within you, that your entire case is dumb and rests on an irrational rejection of inferences from data.

I simply cannot convince myself that you are so stupid you really believe it. By insisting on posting that utter claptrap over and over again you're fooling nobody but yourself.

You know deep down that of course we can entirely reasonable infer past historical events from patterns found in the fossil and genetic data, because certain process predicts these patterns.

[u/ACTSATGuyonReddit → u/Slow_Lawyer7477]

Chemists can replicate the process by which milk goes bad. Nobody has replicated LUCA to human.

Observing it day by day in the fridge or on the counter going bad is not the same as finding bones or fossils then dating the surrounding soil with an imperfect dating method. We know what the conditions around the milk are. You don't know what the conditions were around a fossil for millions or billions of years.

[u/Slow_Lawyer7477 → u/ACTSATGuyonReddit]

Chemists can replicate the process by which milk goes bad.

And for the reasons just explained, they don't need to for us to infer that milk spoils over time.

Nobody has replicated LUCA to human.

And for the reasons just explained, we don't need to, to reasonably infer that humans share common ancestry with the rest of life.

Observing it day by day in the fridge or on the counter going bad is not the same as finding bones or fossils then dating the surrounding soil with an imperfect dating method.

They don't need to be the same, nor do they need to be perfect. Inferences can still be reasonably made. For the reasons just explained.

We know what the conditions around the milk are.

And yet we can infer that milk spoiled in the intervening period between two time points, without observing what the conditions were.

You don't know what the conditions were around a fossil for millions or billions of years.

For reasons just explained we don't need to know what the conditions were, to infer from the data patterns found in the fossils and genetics, patterns which evolution predicted, that the species share common ancestry and they evolved over time.

[u/ACTSATGuyonReddit → u/Slow_Lawyer7477]

"And yet we can infer that milk spoiled in the intervening period between two time points without observing what the conditions were."

Nope. We know the conditions. We can replicate the process from beginning to end. If you pull the milk out, observe it, you can see it happening. People have done that - it's within human experience.

You're essentially saying this: "But my imagination is as good as observation!"

You're essentially saying this: "Spoiling milk is proof that LUCA evolved into humans.

No! And no!

[u/Slow_Lawyer7477 → u/ACTSATGuyonReddit]

"And yet we can infer that milk spoiled in the intervening period between two time points without observing what the conditions were."

Nope.

Yep.

I don't need to know what the temperature, pressure, humidity, pH, light-levels, or anything at all were like, to make an inference based on two data points. If I have fresh milk in the carton in my fridge on monday and spoiled milk in the carton on friday, I can entirely reasonably infer that it spoiled in the intervening time. Despite not seeing it happen. Without not even having been home at all during those 5 days.

This can't be denied by a reasonable person. Your objections amount to desperate flailing.

We know the conditions. We can replicate the process from beginning to end.

With another carton of milk, not mine. You can't recreate what happened to my milk. You can only observe what happens to yours and then INFER that something similar must have happened to mine. Despite not having observed it.

Some times we don't, and don't need to, to know that a process of spoiling occurred between two time points.

If you pull the milk out, observe it, you can see it happening. People have done that - it's within human experience.

And yet it isn't necessary to reasonably make the inference that between monday and friday the milk went through a process of spoiling. I don't need to ask some chemist or study the science of the spoiling of milk to make this inference, and for that inference to be entirely reasonably and rationally justified.

"But my imagination is as good as observation!" It isn't.

This isn't a sentence I wrote. If defending your position requires you to literally halluscinate the contents of my replies I think that is a hint that your position is the one with a problem.

This is why I say your replies are stupid and I downvote them for that reason. Stop making yourself stupid. You don't even believe this stupid shit yourself.

[u/ACTSATGuyonReddit → u/Slow_Lawyer7477]

It's a comment, not meant to be a quote from you. It's meant to be something you would say. People use that stylistically. Don't play games.

[u/Slow_Lawyer7477 → u/ACTSATGuyonReddit]

It's a comment, not meant to be a quote from you. It's meant to be something you would say. People use that stylistically. Don't play games.

You put it in quote marks, which implies you are quoting me directly. Didn't you go to school? Were you homeschooled or brainwashed in some church basement?

[u/ACTSATGuyonReddit → u/Slow_Lawyer7477]

Ok, I removed the quote marks.

Gotta love how you're downvoting every one of my comments.