Jonathan Sarfati

Evolution is not a theory. Both mutation and natural selection are observeable and measurable in nature. Evolution is the outcome of both of these. It's not something you can debunk.

>>8480289
What are his arguments? Also most likely no.

>>8480434
https://youtu.be/WVEO28r-w9o

Here ya go. Warning, it's a long-ass video.

>>8480315

Is there any reasonable explanation for how chromosome number differs between closely related species?

>>8480315
I think it could use some more refinement. Most religious people who accept it just view evolution as some guided mutation to the highest functioning life form because God wills it or whatever. I like the Red Queen theory, that it's a freak show and parasites drive much evolution. Things don't evolve without a good reason. Humans are actually pretty fucked up, we have like 100 redundant parts and assorted fuck ups so pretty far from perfection.

Not sure what this author is on about but probably religious and trying to turn it into a dialect. The only way to win dialects is not play.

File: s6ZZzfmh.jpg (43KB, 720x544px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 720x544px

>>8480443
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb/

Does this work?

>>8480289
Present the arguments in text and I will refute them.

File: 250px-Jonathan_Sarfati.jpg (12KB, 250x321px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 250x321px

>>8480468
Not directly his, but anything on this site is probably consistent with his ideas.

https://www.trueorigin.org

>>8480483
>Advocates of evolutionary theory practice evolutionism when they routinely invoke (and dogmatically defend) naturalistic and humanistic philosophical presuppositions, and arbitrarily apply those presuppositions to their interpretation of the available empirical data. This fact (which many of them zealously deny) severely erodes evolutionists’ credibility, and effectively disqualifies them from any claim to objectivity in matters concerning origins and science, though much material is published by evolutionists under the pretense that it is the product only of purely objective and unprejudiced scientific inquiry.
This seems to be utterly contradictory. Science is naturalistic and materialistic because nature is all that we have observed and gotten empirical data of. So applying naturalism is not a presupposition at all. If we could scientifically prove God or magic exists then scientists would accept it. The irony here is that the creationist ideology is the one founded on dogmatic faith and presupposition, not evolution. This is an extremely misleading argument, as it attempts to separate science from science.

>The question of origins is plainly a matter of science history—not the domain of applied science. Contrary to the unilateral denials of many evolutionists, one’s worldview does indeed play heavily on one’s interpretation of scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement—the three immutable elements of the scientific method—may be employed.
This is merely a convenient distinction for the creationists. It has no truth to it at all. All of the techniques and reasoning in studying the past are based on repeatable experiments, observation of the evidence of what occurred in the past, and quantitative measurement of that evidence. Evolution is no different. This is just another attempt to not call a spade a spade.

>>8480443
Nondisjunction events that produce a non-sterile organisms. In fact those extra chromosomes can lead to speciation events.

>>8480538
The world is a business and Mr. Sarfatty is merely drawing on the massive dissonance and sunk cost bias of creationists to make a living regardless is he believes the bullshit spouted in such works. It probably wouldn't have been published without some decent market research into potential sales of such claptrap. Who knows maybe he niggled an 'educational' contract out of it, a book to be included in religious curriculum?

>>8481658
It was published by some creationist group. They don't care about market research, they are creating the market.

>>8480289

That chess endgame certainly isn't.

>>8480289
I prefer Jack Sarfatti.