Evolution. Pfffft

[Weatherman2020]

This is classic, I just saw it. Evolution is good for your health as laughter is the best medicine.

Fish learned to walk on land not because they grew limbs, but because they grew eyes and saw the tasty morsels on the land (where the tasty morsels came from is for other researchers to figure out I guess.)

Vision, Not Limbs, Led Fish Onto Land 385 Million Years Ago | News | Northwestern Engineering

 

[pinqy]

I am all about evidence. And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.

I'm sorry are you claiming that all fossils from millions of years ago look just like current species??
Evolution states that species change over time, but that doesn't mean all species change to the same degree.
So that some species are pretty much the same as millions of years abo does not contradict Evolution in any way. It's expected.

But how do you explain the differences that do exist?

 

[pinqy]

Really? So why don't you list them for us?

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

I wrote this FAQ as a reference for answering the "there aren't any transitional fossils" statement that pops up on talk.origins several times each year. I've tried to make it an accurate, though highly condensed, summary of known vertebrate fossil history in those lineages that led to familiar modern forms, with the known transitions and with the known major gaps both clearly mentioned. Version 6.0 of the FAQ has been almost entirely rewritten, with:

1. A completely rewritten introduction & conclusion, discussing what "transitional" means, why gaps occur, and what the fossil record shows.
2. A greatly expanded list of "chains of genera" for most groups, especially mammals.
3. References for documented species-to-species fossil transitions, mostly for mammals.
4. Explicit mention of the notable remaining gaps in the fossil record.

If you have questions about this FAQ or want to send email to the author, click here.

Contents
PART I has FISHES TO FIRST MAMMALS & BIRDS:

1. Introduction:
   1. Types of transitions
   2. Why are there gaps?
   3. Predictions of creationism & evolution
   4. What's in this FAQ
   5. Timescale
2. Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
3. Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
4. Transition from fishes to first amphibians
5. Transitions among amphibians
6. Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
7. Transitions among reptiles
8. Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)
9. Transition from reptiles to first birds

Reality.

There is zero evidence of any species transitioning into other species. A 66 million year old fossil of a fish looks just like a fish swimming around today, a 35 million year old fossil of a sea turtle looks just like a sea turtle swimming around today.

Superficially, perhaps...but they're not the same. The Coelacanth today is as related to the 66 million fossil as a poodle is to a sabre tooth tiger.

And your evidence of that is?
And even if true, means nothing because it is still a Coelacanth. Just as people are diverse, it does not mean we are different species going in different directions.

But the Coelacanths are NOT the same species.

 

[WinterBorn]

Spare me your definition of ignorance. You have demanded evidence of evolution, then tried to ridicule every bit. When, obviously, your knowledge of the Theory of Evolution is slim, at best.

And then you have the audacity to suggest intelligent design? ID has absolutely ZERO evidence to back it up. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

In fact, alien landings and UFOs have more evidence.

I just love it when ID is brought up to your ilk, and you can't even acknowledge the possibility of it, yet you stick to your theory of evolution that has more holes in it than an Iranian submarine.

Species have changed over time. That's a fact...there are many species that did not exist millions of years ago and there are species that did exist then that no longer exist, BUT there are clear similarities between some extinct and current species. Evolution explains how this happened. You obviously think there are too many holes. Ok. fine.

What do you think better explains these changes?

There is zero evidence of any species becoming another species. Zero.

Since we cannot go back in time, there is nothing you would accept as evidence of a new species developing from a previously existing one.

However, having a species appear in the fossil record with very similar traits, except for some new trait, in the same area the other species existed, is evidence. Certainly more evidence than ID provides.

Your adamant insistence that there is "no evidence" is laughable, considering the Theory of Evolution provides far more evidence than does the Intelligent design ideas.

I am all about evidence. And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.
You haven't randomly changed some code in your Windows 10 software yet to see how it improves, why not? Because you know it does not work that way. Nature moves towards erosion, not towards order. There is nothing in any law or theory of physics that says an explosion will end up creating Mozart.

You are certainly not "all about evidence". You are all about demanding evidence for evolution. But when it comes to intelligent design, you are perfectly willing to accept things with zero evidence.

The number of species with fossil evidence from millions of years ago to the present, showing no changes at all is exceedingly rare.

Your insistence that evolution includes an explosion is just another example of your lack of knowledge about what is and isn't evolution. It is ridiculous to use it as a description, just like it was ridiculous to use the idea that evolution claimed molten lava became Beethoven.


But since evidence has been offered in support of evolution, please offer evidence supporting intelligent design.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I am all about evidence. And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.

I'm sorry are you claiming that all fossils from millions of years ago look just like current species??
Evolution states that species change over time, but that doesn't mean all species change to the same degree.
So that some species are pretty much the same as millions of years abo does not contradict Evolution in any way. It's expected.

But how do you explain the differences that do exist?

All I'm asking for is evidence. And the only evidence available shows that species remain the same species over millions of years.

 

[WinterBorn]

This is classic, I just saw it. Evolution is good for your health as laughter is the best medicine.

Fish learned to walk on land not because they grew limbs, but because they grew eyes and saw the tasty morsels on the land (where the tasty morsels came from is for other researchers to figure out I guess.)

Vision, Not Limbs, Led Fish Onto Land 385 Million Years Ago | News | Northwestern Engineering

First of all, the "tasty morsels" would have likely been plants.

Second of all, if a mutation allowed for stronger fins, those fish would have been able to nibble at the edges of the water. They would have thrived and reproduced, further enhancing the new traits. Eventually a new species would develop.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I just love it when ID is brought up to your ilk, and you can't even acknowledge the possibility of it, yet you stick to your theory of evolution that has more holes in it than an Iranian submarine.

Species have changed over time. That's a fact...there are many species that did not exist millions of years ago and there are species that did exist then that no longer exist, BUT there are clear similarities between some extinct and current species. Evolution explains how this happened. You obviously think there are too many holes. Ok. fine.

What do you think better explains these changes?

There is zero evidence of any species becoming another species. Zero.

Since we cannot go back in time, there is nothing you would accept as evidence of a new species developing from a previously existing one.

However, having a species appear in the fossil record with very similar traits, except for some new trait, in the same area the other species existed, is evidence. Certainly more evidence than ID provides.

Your adamant insistence that there is "no evidence" is laughable, considering the Theory of Evolution provides far more evidence than does the Intelligent design ideas.

I am all about evidence. And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.
You haven't randomly changed some code in your Windows 10 software yet to see how it improves, why not? Because you know it does not work that way. Nature moves towards erosion, not towards order. There is nothing in any law or theory of physics that says an explosion will end up creating Mozart.

You are certainly not "all about evidence". You are all about demanding evidence for evolution. But when it comes to intelligent design, you are perfectly willing to accept things with zero evidence.

The number of species with fossil evidence from millions of years ago to the present, showing no changes at all is exceedingly rare.

Your insistence that evolution includes an explosion is just another example of your lack of knowledge about what is and isn't evolution. It is ridiculous to use it as a description, just like it was ridiculous to use the idea that evolution claimed molten lava became Beethoven.


But since evidence has been offered in support of evolution, please offer evidence supporting intelligent design.

How dare I ask for evidence to support a scientific theory.
Mathematical probabilities, biology, and physics all point to the only alternative to evolution of the species - intelligent design.

And I can't blame you for not wanting to side with what they teach kids in all the public schools about the creation of the universe and life, it is simply absurd.

 

[Weatherman2020]

This is classic, I just saw it. Evolution is good for your health as laughter is the best medicine.

Fish learned to walk on land not because they grew limbs, but because they grew eyes and saw the tasty morsels on the land (where the tasty morsels came from is for other researchers to figure out I guess.)

Vision, Not Limbs, Led Fish Onto Land 385 Million Years Ago | News | Northwestern Engineering

First of all, the "tasty morsels" would have likely been plants.

Second of all, if a mutation allowed for stronger fins, those fish would have been able to nibble at the edges of the water. They would have thrived and reproduced, further enhancing the new traits. Eventually a new species would develop.

You going with there were no plants in the ocean? Really?
Man going to grow gills because we get most of our food from the ocean?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Really? So why don't you list them for us?

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

I wrote this FAQ as a reference for answering the "there aren't any transitional fossils" statement that pops up on talk.origins several times each year. I've tried to make it an accurate, though highly condensed, summary of known vertebrate fossil history in those lineages that led to familiar modern forms, with the known transitions and with the known major gaps both clearly mentioned. Version 6.0 of the FAQ has been almost entirely rewritten, with:

1. A completely rewritten introduction & conclusion, discussing what "transitional" means, why gaps occur, and what the fossil record shows.
2. A greatly expanded list of "chains of genera" for most groups, especially mammals.
3. References for documented species-to-species fossil transitions, mostly for mammals.
4. Explicit mention of the notable remaining gaps in the fossil record.

If you have questions about this FAQ or want to send email to the author, click here.

Contents
PART I has FISHES TO FIRST MAMMALS & BIRDS:

1. Introduction:
   1. Types of transitions
   2. Why are there gaps?
   3. Predictions of creationism & evolution
   4. What's in this FAQ
   5. Timescale
2. Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
3. Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
4. Transition from fishes to first amphibians
5. Transitions among amphibians
6. Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
7. Transitions among reptiles
8. Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)
9. Transition from reptiles to first birds

Reality.

There is zero evidence of any species transitioning into other species. A 66 million year old fossil of a fish looks just like a fish swimming around today, a 35 million year old fossil of a sea turtle looks just like a sea turtle swimming around today.

Superficially, perhaps...but they're not the same. The Coelacanth today is as related to the 66 million fossil as a poodle is to a sabre tooth tiger.

And your evidence of that is?
And even if true, means nothing because it is still a Coelacanth. Just as people are diverse, it does not mean we are different species going in different directions.

But the Coelacanths are NOT the same species.

Coelacanths are still Coelacanths.
Are these different species?

 

[WinterBorn]

Species have changed over time. That's a fact...there are many species that did not exist millions of years ago and there are species that did exist then that no longer exist, BUT there are clear similarities between some extinct and current species. Evolution explains how this happened. You obviously think there are too many holes. Ok. fine.

What do you think better explains these changes?

There is zero evidence of any species becoming another species. Zero.

Since we cannot go back in time, there is nothing you would accept as evidence of a new species developing from a previously existing one.

However, having a species appear in the fossil record with very similar traits, except for some new trait, in the same area the other species existed, is evidence. Certainly more evidence than ID provides.

Your adamant insistence that there is "no evidence" is laughable, considering the Theory of Evolution provides far more evidence than does the Intelligent design ideas.

I am all about evidence. And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.
You haven't randomly changed some code in your Windows 10 software yet to see how it improves, why not? Because you know it does not work that way. Nature moves towards erosion, not towards order. There is nothing in any law or theory of physics that says an explosion will end up creating Mozart.

You are certainly not "all about evidence". You are all about demanding evidence for evolution. But when it comes to intelligent design, you are perfectly willing to accept things with zero evidence.

The number of species with fossil evidence from millions of years ago to the present, showing no changes at all is exceedingly rare.

Your insistence that evolution includes an explosion is just another example of your lack of knowledge about what is and isn't evolution. It is ridiculous to use it as a description, just like it was ridiculous to use the idea that evolution claimed molten lava became Beethoven.


But since evidence has been offered in support of evolution, please offer evidence supporting intelligent design.

How dare I ask for evidence to support a scientific theory.
Mathematical probabilities, biology, and physics all point to the only alternative to evolution of the species - intelligent design.

And I can't blame you for not wanting to side with what they teach kids in all the public schools about the creation of the universe and life, it is simply absurd.

Sorry, your claim that "Mathematical probabilities, biology, and physics all point to the only alternative to evolution of the species - intelligent design" is bullshit. Biology points to evolution. Physics does not point to anything, since there is nothing in evolution that goes against that field. Mathematics only points away from evolution when you expect all the changes in one felled swoop. Evolution does not.

And even if (and it does not) those pointed towards evolution NOT being accurate. Your insistence that it points towards ID is ridiculous.

Disproving one theory (if you had) does not prove another theory. Either ID stands on its own, with the same expectations of evidence, or it does not.


Please offer any evidence that ID is legit.

 

[WinterBorn]

This is classic, I just saw it. Evolution is good for your health as laughter is the best medicine.

Fish learned to walk on land not because they grew limbs, but because they grew eyes and saw the tasty morsels on the land (where the tasty morsels came from is for other researchers to figure out I guess.)

Vision, Not Limbs, Led Fish Onto Land 385 Million Years Ago | News | Northwestern Engineering

First of all, the "tasty morsels" would have likely been plants.

Second of all, if a mutation allowed for stronger fins, those fish would have been able to nibble at the edges of the water. They would have thrived and reproduced, further enhancing the new traits. Eventually a new species would develop.

You going with there were no plants in the ocean? Really?
Man going to grow gills because we get most of our food from the ocean?

If you are going to make up what I say, instead of going with what I actually said, you'll need to do better.

I did not say there were no plants in the ocean. I simply said the tasty morsels referenced in the link were likely to be plants. Animals compete for food. If an animal has a way of getting food that others do not, it is more likely to reproduce and thrive in greater numbers.

Your childish nonsensical descriptions of evolution do not disprove it, nor do they support ID.

 

[pinqy]

I am all about evidence. And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.

I'm sorry are you claiming that all fossils from millions of years ago look just like current species??
Evolution states that species change over time, but that doesn't mean all species change to the same degree.
So that some species are pretty much the same as millions of years abo does not contradict Evolution in any way. It's expected.

But how do you explain the differences that do exist?

All I'm asking for is evidence. And the only evidence available shows that species remain the same species over millions of years.

Really? So why don't you list them for us?

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

I wrote this FAQ as a reference for answering the "there aren't any transitional fossils" statement that pops up on talk.origins several times each year. I've tried to make it an accurate, though highly condensed, summary of known vertebrate fossil history in those lineages that led to familiar modern forms, with the known transitions and with the known major gaps both clearly mentioned. Version 6.0 of the FAQ has been almost entirely rewritten, with:

1. A completely rewritten introduction & conclusion, discussing what "transitional" means, why gaps occur, and what the fossil record shows.
2. A greatly expanded list of "chains of genera" for most groups, especially mammals.
3. References for documented species-to-species fossil transitions, mostly for mammals.
4. Explicit mention of the notable remaining gaps in the fossil record.

If you have questions about this FAQ or want to send email to the author, click here.

Contents
PART I has FISHES TO FIRST MAMMALS & BIRDS:

1. Introduction:
   1. Types of transitions
   2. Why are there gaps?
   3. Predictions of creationism & evolution
   4. What's in this FAQ
   5. Timescale
2. Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
3. Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
4. Transition from fishes to first amphibians
5. Transitions among amphibians
6. Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
7. Transitions among reptiles
8. Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)
9. Transition from reptiles to first birds

Reality.

There is zero evidence of any species transitioning into other species. A 66 million year old fossil of a fish looks just like a fish swimming around today, a 35 million year old fossil of a sea turtle looks just like a sea turtle swimming around today.

Superficially, perhaps...but they're not the same. The Coelacanth today is as related to the 66 million fossil as a poodle is to a sabre tooth tiger.

And your evidence of that is?
And even if true, means nothing because it is still a Coelacanth. Just as people are diverse, it does not mean we are different species going in different directions.

But the Coelacanths are NOT the same species.

Coelacanths are still Coelacanths.
Are these different species?

No. they're not. But there are two current species of Coelacanths now, and they are not the same as those from millions of years ago.
Coelacanth does NOT refer to a species. It refers to an ORDER. You're saying there's no difference between a Gorilla and a lemur because they're both primates.

 

[Weatherman2020]

There is zero evidence of any species becoming another species. Zero.

Since we cannot go back in time, there is nothing you would accept as evidence of a new species developing from a previously existing one.

However, having a species appear in the fossil record with very similar traits, except for some new trait, in the same area the other species existed, is evidence. Certainly more evidence than ID provides.

Your adamant insistence that there is "no evidence" is laughable, considering the Theory of Evolution provides far more evidence than does the Intelligent design ideas.

I am all about evidence. And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.
You haven't randomly changed some code in your Windows 10 software yet to see how it improves, why not? Because you know it does not work that way. Nature moves towards erosion, not towards order. There is nothing in any law or theory of physics that says an explosion will end up creating Mozart.

You are certainly not "all about evidence". You are all about demanding evidence for evolution. But when it comes to intelligent design, you are perfectly willing to accept things with zero evidence.

The number of species with fossil evidence from millions of years ago to the present, showing no changes at all is exceedingly rare.

Your insistence that evolution includes an explosion is just another example of your lack of knowledge about what is and isn't evolution. It is ridiculous to use it as a description, just like it was ridiculous to use the idea that evolution claimed molten lava became Beethoven.


But since evidence has been offered in support of evolution, please offer evidence supporting intelligent design.

How dare I ask for evidence to support a scientific theory.
Mathematical probabilities, biology, and physics all point to the only alternative to evolution of the species - intelligent design.

And I can't blame you for not wanting to side with what they teach kids in all the public schools about the creation of the universe and life, it is simply absurd.

Sorry, your claim that "Mathematical probabilities, biology, and physics all point to the only alternative to evolution of the species - intelligent design" is bullshit. Biology points to evolution. Physics does not point to anything, since there is nothing in evolution that goes against that field. Mathematics only points away from evolution when you expect all the changes in one felled swoop. Evolution does not.

And even if (and it does not) those pointed towards evolution NOT being accurate. Your insistence that it points towards ID is ridiculous.

Disproving one theory (if you had) does not prove another theory. Either ID stands on its own, with the same expectations of evidence, or it does not.


Please offer any evidence that ID is legit.

Dude, try to think outside of the box you were programmed to parrot. In physics, chaos does not evolve into order on it's own. In biology, even assuming 4 billion years, molten terrain does not become a human genome.

You ever see how DNA replicates? Dude, there are biological machines that do it.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I am all about evidence. And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.

I'm sorry are you claiming that all fossils from millions of years ago look just like current species??
Evolution states that species change over time, but that doesn't mean all species change to the same degree.
So that some species are pretty much the same as millions of years abo does not contradict Evolution in any way. It's expected.

But how do you explain the differences that do exist?

All I'm asking for is evidence. And the only evidence available shows that species remain the same species over millions of years.

There is zero evidence of any species transitioning into other species. A 66 million year old fossil of a fish looks just like a fish swimming around today, a 35 million year old fossil of a sea turtle looks just like a sea turtle swimming around today.

Superficially, perhaps...but they're not the same. The Coelacanth today is as related to the 66 million fossil as a poodle is to a sabre tooth tiger.

And your evidence of that is?
And even if true, means nothing because it is still a Coelacanth. Just as people are diverse, it does not mean we are different species going in different directions.

But the Coelacanths are NOT the same species.

Coelacanths are still Coelacanths.
Are these different species?

No. they're not. But there are two current species of Coelacanths now, and they are not the same as those from millions of years ago.
Coelacanth does NOT refer to a species. It refers to an ORDER. You're saying there's no difference between a Gorilla and a lemur because they're both primates.

how many species in this photo?

 

[WinterBorn]

Since we cannot go back in time, there is nothing you would accept as evidence of a new species developing from a previously existing one.

However, having a species appear in the fossil record with very similar traits, except for some new trait, in the same area the other species existed, is evidence. Certainly more evidence than ID provides.

Your adamant insistence that there is "no evidence" is laughable, considering the Theory of Evolution provides far more evidence than does the Intelligent design ideas.

I am all about evidence. And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.
You haven't randomly changed some code in your Windows 10 software yet to see how it improves, why not? Because you know it does not work that way. Nature moves towards erosion, not towards order. There is nothing in any law or theory of physics that says an explosion will end up creating Mozart.

You are certainly not "all about evidence". You are all about demanding evidence for evolution. But when it comes to intelligent design, you are perfectly willing to accept things with zero evidence.

The number of species with fossil evidence from millions of years ago to the present, showing no changes at all is exceedingly rare.

Your insistence that evolution includes an explosion is just another example of your lack of knowledge about what is and isn't evolution. It is ridiculous to use it as a description, just like it was ridiculous to use the idea that evolution claimed molten lava became Beethoven.


But since evidence has been offered in support of evolution, please offer evidence supporting intelligent design.

How dare I ask for evidence to support a scientific theory.
Mathematical probabilities, biology, and physics all point to the only alternative to evolution of the species - intelligent design.

And I can't blame you for not wanting to side with what they teach kids in all the public schools about the creation of the universe and life, it is simply absurd.

Sorry, your claim that "Mathematical probabilities, biology, and physics all point to the only alternative to evolution of the species - intelligent design" is bullshit. Biology points to evolution. Physics does not point to anything, since there is nothing in evolution that goes against that field. Mathematics only points away from evolution when you expect all the changes in one felled swoop. Evolution does not.

And even if (and it does not) those pointed towards evolution NOT being accurate. Your insistence that it points towards ID is ridiculous.

Disproving one theory (if you had) does not prove another theory. Either ID stands on its own, with the same expectations of evidence, or it does not.


Please offer any evidence that ID is legit.

Dude, try to think outside of the box you were programmed to parrot. In physics, chaos does not evolve into order on it's own. In biology, even assuming 4 billion years, molten terrain does not become a human genome.
View attachment 118091


You ever see how DNA replicates? Dude, there are biological machines that do it.
View attachment 118087

Once again, can you offer any actual evidence to support ID? It is a simple question. So far you have only pointed to reasons you think evolution is not accurate. That does nothing to provide evidence of ID.

Can you offer actual evidence supporting ID?

 

[WinterBorn]

I am all about evidence. And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.

I'm sorry are you claiming that all fossils from millions of years ago look just like current species??
Evolution states that species change over time, but that doesn't mean all species change to the same degree.
So that some species are pretty much the same as millions of years abo does not contradict Evolution in any way. It's expected.

But how do you explain the differences that do exist?

All I'm asking for is evidence. And the only evidence available shows that species remain the same species over millions of years.

Superficially, perhaps...but they're not the same. The Coelacanth today is as related to the 66 million fossil as a poodle is to a sabre tooth tiger.

And your evidence of that is?
And even if true, means nothing because it is still a Coelacanth. Just as people are diverse, it does not mean we are different species going in different directions.

But the Coelacanths are NOT the same species.

Coelacanths are still Coelacanths.
Are these different species?

No. they're not. But there are two current species of Coelacanths now, and they are not the same as those from millions of years ago.
Coelacanth does NOT refer to a species. It refers to an ORDER. You're saying there's no difference between a Gorilla and a lemur because they're both primates.

how many species in this photo?
View attachment 118092

Obviously only one. This proves nothing where the coelacanth is concerned.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I am all about evidence. And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.
You haven't randomly changed some code in your Windows 10 software yet to see how it improves, why not? Because you know it does not work that way. Nature moves towards erosion, not towards order. There is nothing in any law or theory of physics that says an explosion will end up creating Mozart.

You are certainly not "all about evidence". You are all about demanding evidence for evolution. But when it comes to intelligent design, you are perfectly willing to accept things with zero evidence.

The number of species with fossil evidence from millions of years ago to the present, showing no changes at all is exceedingly rare.

Your insistence that evolution includes an explosion is just another example of your lack of knowledge about what is and isn't evolution. It is ridiculous to use it as a description, just like it was ridiculous to use the idea that evolution claimed molten lava became Beethoven.


But since evidence has been offered in support of evolution, please offer evidence supporting intelligent design.

How dare I ask for evidence to support a scientific theory.
Mathematical probabilities, biology, and physics all point to the only alternative to evolution of the species - intelligent design.

And I can't blame you for not wanting to side with what they teach kids in all the public schools about the creation of the universe and life, it is simply absurd.

Sorry, your claim that "Mathematical probabilities, biology, and physics all point to the only alternative to evolution of the species - intelligent design" is bullshit. Biology points to evolution. Physics does not point to anything, since there is nothing in evolution that goes against that field. Mathematics only points away from evolution when you expect all the changes in one felled swoop. Evolution does not.

And even if (and it does not) those pointed towards evolution NOT being accurate. Your insistence that it points towards ID is ridiculous.

Disproving one theory (if you had) does not prove another theory. Either ID stands on its own, with the same expectations of evidence, or it does not.


Please offer any evidence that ID is legit.

Dude, try to think outside of the box you were programmed to parrot. In physics, chaos does not evolve into order on it's own. In biology, even assuming 4 billion years, molten terrain does not become a human genome.
View attachment 118091


You ever see how DNA replicates? Dude, there are biological machines that do it.
View attachment 118087

Once again, can you offer any actual evidence to support ID? It is a simple question. So far you have only pointed to reasons you think evolution is not accurate. That does nothing to provide evidence of ID.

Can you offer actual evidence supporting ID?

Please let me know an alternative theory to life today if evolution is not the answer.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I am all about evidence. And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.

I'm sorry are you claiming that all fossils from millions of years ago look just like current species??
Evolution states that species change over time, but that doesn't mean all species change to the same degree.
So that some species are pretty much the same as millions of years abo does not contradict Evolution in any way. It's expected.

But how do you explain the differences that do exist?

All I'm asking for is evidence. And the only evidence available shows that species remain the same species over millions of years.

And your evidence of that is?
And even if true, means nothing because it is still a Coelacanth. Just as people are diverse, it does not mean we are different species going in different directions.

But the Coelacanths are NOT the same species.

Coelacanths are still Coelacanths.
Are these different species?

No. they're not. But there are two current species of Coelacanths now, and they are not the same as those from millions of years ago.
Coelacanth does NOT refer to a species. It refers to an ORDER. You're saying there's no difference between a Gorilla and a lemur because they're both primates.

how many species in this photo?
View attachment 118092

Obviously only one. This proves nothing where the coelacanth is concerned.

Ah, so a coelacanth that is 1 foot longer is a different species, but because it is humans, a 6-6 300 pound black man is the same species as a 4 foot white man.
That is a byproduct of your programming of what to parrot.

 

[WinterBorn]

How many species are shown here? Hint: 3 separate species

 

[WinterBorn]

You are certainly not "all about evidence". You are all about demanding evidence for evolution. But when it comes to intelligent design, you are perfectly willing to accept things with zero evidence.

The number of species with fossil evidence from millions of years ago to the present, showing no changes at all is exceedingly rare.

Your insistence that evolution includes an explosion is just another example of your lack of knowledge about what is and isn't evolution. It is ridiculous to use it as a description, just like it was ridiculous to use the idea that evolution claimed molten lava became Beethoven.


But since evidence has been offered in support of evolution, please offer evidence supporting intelligent design.

How dare I ask for evidence to support a scientific theory.
Mathematical probabilities, biology, and physics all point to the only alternative to evolution of the species - intelligent design.

And I can't blame you for not wanting to side with what they teach kids in all the public schools about the creation of the universe and life, it is simply absurd.

Sorry, your claim that "Mathematical probabilities, biology, and physics all point to the only alternative to evolution of the species - intelligent design" is bullshit. Biology points to evolution. Physics does not point to anything, since there is nothing in evolution that goes against that field. Mathematics only points away from evolution when you expect all the changes in one felled swoop. Evolution does not.

And even if (and it does not) those pointed towards evolution NOT being accurate. Your insistence that it points towards ID is ridiculous.

Disproving one theory (if you had) does not prove another theory. Either ID stands on its own, with the same expectations of evidence, or it does not.


Please offer any evidence that ID is legit.

Dude, try to think outside of the box you were programmed to parrot. In physics, chaos does not evolve into order on it's own. In biology, even assuming 4 billion years, molten terrain does not become a human genome.
View attachment 118091


You ever see how DNA replicates? Dude, there are biological machines that do it.
View attachment 118087

Once again, can you offer any actual evidence to support ID? It is a simple question. So far you have only pointed to reasons you think evolution is not accurate. That does nothing to provide evidence of ID.

Can you offer actual evidence supporting ID?

Please let me know an alternative theory to life today if evolution is not the answer.

Still waiting for you to stop dancing and actually answer my question.