The Stupid Lie called The Theory of Evolution

[sealybobo]

You think it's more "plausible" that the earth was created by some mythical being? Seriously?

Again, Chris... I have said this repeatedly throughout the thread... It doesn't matter if I have a better theory. Science is not a pissing contest where I have to come up with a better theory than yours. It is entirely up to YOU to prove your theories... it doesn't matter if I have a theory or if I can prove mine.

I don't believe in "mythical beings" ...I believe in spiritual nature. There is no "being" involved, mythical or otherwise. And let me clarify that... It's not just that I blindly have faith in my belief, I am aware of spiritual nature and it proves itself to me daily. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that it's there. You see... I'm not big on blind faith. I generally have to see some evidence before I believe it. That's why I reject the theories of macro-evolution and abiogenesis... I have not seen the evidence to support it. That's not me saying it's not true or the theories aren't valid... I just don't believe them until I see evidence.

You don't have any science or any evidence at all to back up your "theory."

Why don't you just say, you reject science in favor of unfounded beliefs because of your "feelings?" That would be honest.

I found this to be interesting

Second, the researchers tested whether an American's political views influenced his or her view of evolution theory.

The team found that individuals with anti-abortion, pro-life views associated with the conservative wing of the Republican Party were significantly more likely to reject evolution than people with pro-choice views.

The team adds that in Europe having pro-life or right-wing political views had little correlation with a person's attitude toward evolution.

The researchers say this reflects the politicization of the evolution issue in the U.S. "in a manner never seen in Europe or Japan."

"In the second half of the 20th century, the conservative wing of the Republican Party has adopted creationism as part of a platform designed to consolidate their support in Southern and Midwestern states," the study authors write.

Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds

 

[sealybobo]

See why they use religion to con us?

When Ronald Reagan was running for President of the U.S., for example, he gave speeches in these states where he would slip in the sentence, "I have no chimpanzees in my family," poking fun at the idea that apes could be the ancestors of humans.

When such a view comes from the U.S. President or other prominent political figures, Miller says, it "lends a degree of legitimacy to the dispute."

 

[sealybobo]

Third, the study found that adults with some understanding of genetics are more likely to have a positive attitude toward evolution.

But, the authors say, studies in the U.S. suggest substantial numbers of American adults are confused about some core ideas related to 20th- and 21st-century biology.

The researchers cite a 2005 study finding that 78 percent of adults agreed that plants and animals had evolved from other organisms. In the same study, 62 percent also believed that God created humans without any evolutionary development.

Fewer than half of American adults can provide a minimal definition of DNA, the authors add.

 

[sealybobo]

No, the kind of evolution you believe in has never been proven to have occurred. It may have, it just hasn't been proven with Science.

I haven't dodged anything... I don't have a scientific theory on origin of life, never claimed I did. I am challenging YOUR theory and you can't back your theory up with science so you ridicule the fact that I haven't presented a better idea.... but that isn't how Science works, never has been, never will be. Sorry!

Evolution DID occur..that is a fact

It is observable SCIENCE
We have observed fossil evidence that only simple life forms existed 500 million years ago
We have observed progressively more complex creatures emerge and have seen creatures die out
We have observed that man was not around until fairly recently

That is what is known as Evolution

Now you are running to hide behind the safe skirt of micro-evolution which I have never disputed. You simply need to look at the silver fox and polar bear for examples of that.

"Observable science" is not Science... sorry, it's actually the antithesis of Science. Science is the testing, observation and evaluation of a hypothesis. What you are calling "observable science" is merely simple observation and it's why man thought the Earth was flat and the universe revolved around the Earth.

You're simply making an observation of how things seem they should be and attaching the word "science" onto it, in order to claim your observations are truth and fact. But that's never been how Science works.

Observations are a critical part of science...always have been

We have observed the progress of evolution....that is indisputable fact
How and why evolution occurs are still theories

Evolution itself...is a FACT

Nope... Observation of tests and experiments are a critical part. Simple observations are not. Things are often NOT as they appear to be. Over and over throughout the history of Science, we have learned this. In fact, that is precisely WHY science was invented, to evaluate questions on some basis other than simple observance or what appears to be the case.

You have no concept of the scope of scientific research
Tests and experiments are an approximation of real life...they do not replace or take precedence over real life observations

It took a lot of digging to figure out Boss was a creationist pretending to be pro science. Reminds me of Amway. Remember Amway? It would be half way through a 1 hour presentation before you realize what they are trying to sell you on is AMWAY! Mother fuckers! LOL

 

[ChrisL]

Sorry, but the theory of evolution IS science. Lol. That's why we learn about it in SCIENCE class. The theory was put forth by SCIENTISTS.

Damn, hard head... what part of this are you missing? MICRO = Science... MACRO = Speculation.

I have NO problem with Science.

I have a real problem with Speculation being presented AS Science.

I don't CARE about what you learned in school.

I don't CARE if your speculations are popular.

I don't CARE if Religionz R Badd!

I DO CARE about actual scientific results.

If you cannot prove macro-evolution happens, you can't claim it is a scientific fact.

Well, why do you ignore the scientific results then? Lol. What year did you graduate? I'm sure that would explain a lot.

 

[sealybobo]

Sorry, but the theory of evolution IS science. Lol. That's why we learn about it in SCIENCE class. The theory was put forth by SCIENTISTS.

Damn, hard head... what part of this are you missing? MICRO = Science... MACRO = Speculation.

I have NO problem with Science.

I have a real problem with Speculation being presented AS Science.

I don't CARE about what you learned in school.

I don't CARE if your speculations are popular.

I don't CARE if Religionz R Badd!

I DO CARE about actual scientific results.

If you cannot prove macro-evolution happens, you can't claim it is a scientific fact.

Well, why do you ignore the scientific results then? Lol. What year did you graduate? I'm sure that would explain a lot.

Here is one example of how and why America is not the greatest country in the world:

In European countries, including Denmark, Sweden, and France, more than 80 percent of adults surveyed said they accepted the concept of evolution. The proportion of western European adults who believed the theory "absolutely false" ranged from 7 percent in Great Britain to 15 percent in the Netherlands.

People in the United States are much less likely to accept Darwin's idea that humans and apes share a common ancestor than adults in other Western nations. Consider the red necks down south who've been raised learning that the creation story is fact and evolution is a myth put out there by liberal gay hippies. Lying religions have to protect their lies.

A new study of those surveys suggests that the main reason for this lies in a unique confluence of religion, politics, and the public understanding of biological science in the United States.

In the U.S., only 14 percent of adults thought that evolution was "definitely true," while about a third firmly rejected the idea.

In European countries, including Denmark, Sweden, and France, more than 80 percent of adults surveyed said they accepted the concept of evolution.

 

[Boss]

No, the kind of evolution you believe in has never been proven to have occurred. It may have, it just hasn't been proven with Science.

I haven't dodged anything... I don't have a scientific theory on origin of life, never claimed I did. I am challenging YOUR theory and you can't back your theory up with science so you ridicule the fact that I haven't presented a better idea.... but that isn't how Science works, never has been, never will be. Sorry!

Evolution DID occur..that is a fact

It is observable SCIENCE
We have observed fossil evidence that only simple life forms existed 500 million years ago
We have observed progressively more complex creatures emerge and have seen creatures die out
We have observed that man was not around until fairly recently

That is what is known as Evolution

Now you are running to hide behind the safe skirt of micro-evolution which I have never disputed. You simply need to look at the silver fox and polar bear for examples of that.

"Observable science" is not Science... sorry, it's actually the antithesis of Science. Science is the testing, observation and evaluation of a hypothesis. What you are calling "observable science" is merely simple observation and it's why man thought the Earth was flat and the universe revolved around the Earth.

You're simply making an observation of how things seem they should be and attaching the word "science" onto it, in order to claim your observations are truth and fact. But that's never been how Science works.

Observations are a critical part of science...always have been

We have observed the progress of evolution....that is indisputable fact
How and why evolution occurs are still theories

Evolution itself...is a FACT

Nope... Observation of tests and experiments are a critical part. Simple observations are not. Things are often NOT as they appear to be. Over and over throughout the history of Science, we have learned this. In fact, that is precisely WHY science was invented, to evaluate questions on some basis other than simple observance or what appears to be the case.

Here is all the evidence/proof you need. Keep in mind it isn't our job to explain the facts to a person like you. If you can't accept or understand it, that's not our problem. If the facts go over your head or make you feel uncomfortable, that's not our problem either. We all know where you are coming from. No amount of proof is going to make you comfortable with the fact you are related to a frog.

Universal common descent is a general descriptive theory concerning the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related. Thus, universal common ancestry entails the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, macroevolutionary history and processes involving the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences. Here is the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

• Universal Common Descent Defined
• Evidence for Common Descent is Independent of Mechanism
• What Counts as Scientific Evidence
• Other Explanations for the Biology
• How to Cite This Document

Scientific Evidence and the Scientific Method

Phylogenetics introduction

• Figure 1: A consensus universal phylogeny
• Cladistics and phylogenetic reconstruction
  • Maximum parsimony
  • Maximum likelihood
  • Distance matrix methods
• Statistical support for phylogenies
• Does phylogenetic inference find correct trees?
• Caveats with determining phylogenetic trees

Part I. A unique, historical phylogenetic tree

1. Unity of life

2. Nested hierarchies

3. Convergence of independent phylogenies

o Statistics of incongruent phylogenies

4. Transitional forms

o Reptile-birds

o Reptile-mammals

o Ape-humans

o Legged whales

o Legged seacows

5. Chronology of common ancestors

Part 2. Past history

1. Anatomical vestiges

2. Atavisms

o Whales and dolphins with hindlimbs

o Humans tails

3. Molecular vestiges

4. Ontogeny and developmental biology

o Mammalian ear bones, reptilian jaws

o Pharyngeal pouches, branchial arches

o Snake embryos with legs

o Embryonic human tail

o Marsupial eggshell and caruncle

5. Present biogeography

6. Past biogeography

o Marsupials

o Horses

o Apes and humans

Part 3. Evolutionary opportunism

1. Anatomical parahomology

2. Molecular parahomology

3. Anatomical convergence

4. Molecular convergence

5. Anatomical suboptimal function

6. Molecular suboptimal function

Part 4. Molecular evidence

1. Protein functional redundancy

2. DNA functional redundancy

3. Transposons

4. Redundant pseudogenes

5. Endogenous retroviruses

Part 5. Change

1. Genetic

2. Morphological

3. Functional

4. The strange past

5. Stages of speciation

6. Speciation events

7. Morphological rates

8. Genetic rates

Sorry, I do not accept a damn thing from talkorigins.org as evidence. It is no different than accepting testimony from a paid witness or the verdict of a bribed jury. It is NOT a Science organization, it is an activist atheist organization with an agenda. If you would like to present SCIENCE from a source of SCIENCE, then I will objectively look at it and respond.

 

[Boss]

We have observed macro evolution

Mammals did not exist until later in the evolutionary cycle. They either evolved from earlier species or popped out of thin air

What scientific evidence do you have to support the popped out of thin air hypothesis?

First of all, there you go again demanding a theory from me in order to support your own theory. That's not in the scientific method. I don't have to present a better theory or else yours is valid. That's just not how science works. All of you need to stop doing this because it's really starting to piss me off.

First you claim we've observed it... then you go right on to say that it's 'either-or' .....well, if we've observed it, it can't be either-or and we KNOW which one because we've observed it. So what you are ACTUALLY saying is... we've observed it but we haven't observed it.

You do not know when mammals existed. You're making a speculation based on the fossils we've discovered. And I don't know why you think it's so ridiculous to say "popped into existence out of thin air" when the very best explanations ANY of you have ever come up with for origins of life... it popped into existence out of thin air! There is really no other way for it to have gotten here. I mean, you even have a theory of how the universe popped into existence out of thin air called The Big Bang. So why is it, in YOUR OWN explanations, this is acceptable... but it's ridiculous if someone else claims it?

So there is my hypothesis you demanded which does nothing to help support your hypothesis... they popped out of thin air, just like every species appears to have done in the fossil record. Some things popped into existence, some things popped out of existence and presto, here we are!

What every scientific study of biology has ever shown certainly DIDN'T happen, is one genus of living organism spawning a completely different genus of living organism. DNA blocks that possibility and that's why a dog can't fuck a cat and produce a dog-cat offspring. You can't overcome that obstacle to your hypothesis so you resort to appeals to ridicule and popularity.

 

[Boss]

One thing I can see is that they do have their arguments for why they don't believe in macro evolution well thought out. Unfortunately the scientific community says they are wrong. If they were good arguments they would have been accepted in the scientific community. For example they don't believe whales were land animals at one time. Even though the scientific community says they were.

No, the "scientific community" doesn't say any such thing. Some people IN the scientific community may believe this... it's unproven. I've explained this earlier... they found prehistoric whales which appeared to have a limb... they ASSUMED this meant whales used to walk the lands. HOWEVER.... studies of modern whales show a large bone-like structure in that same location that is believed to be beneficial to whales when they mate. So what has likely been discovered is prehistoric version of that same thing. Furthermore, in both the prehistoric and modern version, this "limb" is unattached to the animal's vertebrae. So even IF you can make yourself believe it WAS an arm or leg... it was certainly not functional as one.

This sort of thing happens often when we find something and jump to conclusions instead of practicing Science.

 

[Boss]

Human beings have existed for about 2.4m years. Homo sapiens have only existed for 6% of that time – about 150,000 years.

No... "Human beings" ARE homo sapiens.

Homo sapien is a member of the genus Homo. Other members of the genus are now extinct and they include homo neanderthalis and homo erectus. Homo sapiens probably descended, along with homo neanderthalis, from the earlier homo erectus.

There are other genera of hominidae (our family) but our DNA prevents us from intercoursing with them.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I have a question. Why did God bury all those things that look like old bones, ya know fossils?

The fossil record is no friend to evolution. We observe species suddenly appear and suddenly disappear. There is not this never-ending transitional evidence where things are becoming other things... there should be, if that's what happened.

Boss, you and I have discussed other topics before and to me you seem an intelligent fellow with an educated and skeptical mind.

Can I ask you what you would accept as evidence for common ancestry? Would you accept DNA evidence?

Do you think your standard for accepting evidence which supports atomic theory, relativity, quantum theory, economic theories, or social theories is the same for evolutionary theories?

DNA is also not a friend to macro-evolution theory. In fact, I believe it's the primary evidence which refutes the theory better than anything we've ever learned. It is the mitochondria in the DNA which essentially prevents any organism from becoming a different genera. It is sometimes flexible enough to allow adaptive changes which can spawn new species of life within the genera. That, to date, is the only type of "evolution" that can be proven to happen.

Now this is where some people leap from micro to macro evolution and insist it's just a matter of more time... but it's not simply a matter of more time... it's a matter of numerous amino acids and enzymes which the mitochondria can't reproduce or generate through mutation or any other process we know of.

I can theoretically walk to California... that's a supported fact. I can't take that fact and claim that I can also walk to London, it just takes more time. It doesn't matter how much time I have, I can't walk to London because there is an ocean. This obstacle prevents my second theory from being valid. It may seem logical that if I can walk to California, given time, I can also walk to London.... but the fact is, there is an ocean between here and London that can't be avoided. Now.... MAYBE... someday I will discover a way to walk on water... THEN my theory might be valid. As of now, it's impossible.

That's kind of what we have in this evolution argument. MICRO-evolution happens... we can observe and test it. What doesn't happen is MACRO-evolution. There has never been any scientific evidence to prove it could have happened. They've been trying since 1859.

If I understand correctly what your premise is then you believe that biologists haven't determined that mitochondria evolve?

If that were so, it would be the one of the biggest goals in biology. Every grad student in a biology field would be looking for evidence that supports mitochondrial evolution. They're not because we've already discovered such evidence.

Your premise also suggests that biologists think that there is micro-evolution and macro-evolution. They don't. There is only evolution. It isn't logical, based on the evidence, to assume that there is an arbitrary boundary at which evolution stops, especially because that boundary itself is arbitrary. Species are differentiated only as a useful category by human beings, not by a universal creator.

Your premise suggests, also, that each genus of organism appeared fully developed. Do you accept that is what occurred?

Just as a side point: no scientific theories have been or ever will be proven. That isn't how scientific theories work. If you are looking for proof, you will never find it because it doesn't apply to scientific theories. Theories are tested through their explanatory power of the available evidence and their predictive accuracy. If the theories of evolution did not explain the all of the available evidence they would not be theories but hypotheses. If biologists were unable to make predictions with any accuracy or only with unreliable accuracy, the theories of evolution would have been discarded.

I don't believe in the theories of evolution. That would be doing science wrong. I merely tentatively accept them as models for understanding until they are either tweaked or discarded when new discoveries are made.

Also, I don't think that in this particular case your walking analogy applies.

 

[rightwinger]

We have observed macro evolution

Mammals did not exist until later in the evolutionary cycle. They either evolved from earlier species or popped out of thin air

What scientific evidence do you have to support the popped out of thin air hypothesis?

First of all, there you go again demanding a theory from me in order to support your own theory. That's not in the scientific method. I don't have to present a better theory or else yours is valid. That's just not how science works. All of you need to stop doing this because it's really starting to piss me off.

First you claim we've observed it... then you go right on to say that it's 'either-or' .....well, if we've observed it, it can't be either-or and we KNOW which one because we've observed it. So what you are ACTUALLY saying is... we've observed it but we haven't observed it.

You do not know when mammals existed. You're making a speculation based on the fossils we've discovered. And I don't know why you think it's so ridiculous to say "popped into existence out of thin air" when the very best explanations ANY of you have ever come up with for origins of life... it popped into existence out of thin air! There is really no other way for it to have gotten here. I mean, you even have a theory of how the universe popped into existence out of thin air called The Big Bang. So why is it, in YOUR OWN explanations, this is acceptable... but it's ridiculous if someone else claims it?

So there is my hypothesis you demanded which does nothing to help support your hypothesis... they popped out of thin air, just like every species appears to have done in the fossil record. Some things popped into existence, some things popped out of existence and presto, here we are!

What every scientific study of biology has ever shown certainly DIDN'T happen, is one genus of living organism spawning a completely different genus of living organism. DNA blocks that possibility and that's why a dog can't fuck a cat and produce a dog-cat offspring. You can't overcome that obstacle to your hypothesis so you resort to appeals to ridicule and popularity.

OK...so your theory is that new species do not come from existing living organisms but materialized out of nowhere

We do know mammals did not exist 500 million years ago. There is ample evidence from around the world supporting that. So they either evolved from other living species or "popped" into existence out of nowhere

 

[sealybobo]

Evolution DID occur..that is a fact

It is observable SCIENCE
We have observed fossil evidence that only simple life forms existed 500 million years ago
We have observed progressively more complex creatures emerge and have seen creatures die out
We have observed that man was not around until fairly recently

That is what is known as Evolution

Now you are running to hide behind the safe skirt of micro-evolution which I have never disputed. You simply need to look at the silver fox and polar bear for examples of that.

"Observable science" is not Science... sorry, it's actually the antithesis of Science. Science is the testing, observation and evaluation of a hypothesis. What you are calling "observable science" is merely simple observation and it's why man thought the Earth was flat and the universe revolved around the Earth.

You're simply making an observation of how things seem they should be and attaching the word "science" onto it, in order to claim your observations are truth and fact. But that's never been how Science works.

Observations are a critical part of science...always have been

We have observed the progress of evolution....that is indisputable fact
How and why evolution occurs are still theories

Evolution itself...is a FACT

Nope... Observation of tests and experiments are a critical part. Simple observations are not. Things are often NOT as they appear to be. Over and over throughout the history of Science, we have learned this. In fact, that is precisely WHY science was invented, to evaluate questions on some basis other than simple observance or what appears to be the case.

Here is all the evidence/proof you need. Keep in mind it isn't our job to explain the facts to a person like you. If you can't accept or understand it, that's not our problem. If the facts go over your head or make you feel uncomfortable, that's not our problem either. We all know where you are coming from. No amount of proof is going to make you comfortable with the fact you are related to a frog.

Universal common descent is a general descriptive theory concerning the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related. Thus, universal common ancestry entails the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, macroevolutionary history and processes involving the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences. Here is the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

• Universal Common Descent Defined
• Evidence for Common Descent is Independent of Mechanism
• What Counts as Scientific Evidence
• Other Explanations for the Biology
• How to Cite This Document

Scientific Evidence and the Scientific Method

Phylogenetics introduction

• Figure 1: A consensus universal phylogeny
• Cladistics and phylogenetic reconstruction
  • Maximum parsimony
  • Maximum likelihood
  • Distance matrix methods
• Statistical support for phylogenies
• Does phylogenetic inference find correct trees?
• Caveats with determining phylogenetic trees

Part I. A unique, historical phylogenetic tree

1. Unity of life

2. Nested hierarchies

3. Convergence of independent phylogenies

o Statistics of incongruent phylogenies

4. Transitional forms

o Reptile-birds

o Reptile-mammals

o Ape-humans

o Legged whales

o Legged seacows

5. Chronology of common ancestors

Part 2. Past history

1. Anatomical vestiges

2. Atavisms

o Whales and dolphins with hindlimbs

o Humans tails

3. Molecular vestiges

4. Ontogeny and developmental biology

o Mammalian ear bones, reptilian jaws

o Pharyngeal pouches, branchial arches

o Snake embryos with legs

o Embryonic human tail

o Marsupial eggshell and caruncle

5. Present biogeography

6. Past biogeography

o Marsupials

o Horses

o Apes and humans

Part 3. Evolutionary opportunism

1. Anatomical parahomology

2. Molecular parahomology

3. Anatomical convergence

4. Molecular convergence

5. Anatomical suboptimal function

6. Molecular suboptimal function

Part 4. Molecular evidence

1. Protein functional redundancy

2. DNA functional redundancy

3. Transposons

4. Redundant pseudogenes

5. Endogenous retroviruses

Part 5. Change

1. Genetic

2. Morphological

3. Functional

4. The strange past

5. Stages of speciation

6. Speciation events

7. Morphological rates

8. Genetic rates

Sorry, I do not accept a damn thing from talkorigins.org as evidence. It is no different than accepting testimony from a paid witness or the verdict of a bribed jury. It is NOT a Science organization, it is an activist atheist organization with an agenda. If you would like to present SCIENCE from a source of SCIENCE, then I will objectively look at it and respond.

Everything you say comes from a creationist website and we all know that's not science.

Why Creationism Isn’t Science

 

[sealybobo]

I have a question. Why did God bury all those things that look like old bones, ya know fossils?

The fossil record is no friend to evolution. We observe species suddenly appear and suddenly disappear. There is not this never-ending transitional evidence where things are becoming other things... there should be, if that's what happened.

Boss, you and I have discussed other topics before and to me you seem an intelligent fellow with an educated and skeptical mind.

Can I ask you what you would accept as evidence for common ancestry? Would you accept DNA evidence?

Do you think your standard for accepting evidence which supports atomic theory, relativity, quantum theory, economic theories, or social theories is the same for evolutionary theories?

DNA is also not a friend to macro-evolution theory. In fact, I believe it's the primary evidence which refutes the theory better than anything we've ever learned. It is the mitochondria in the DNA which essentially prevents any organism from becoming a different genera. It is sometimes flexible enough to allow adaptive changes which can spawn new species of life within the genera. That, to date, is the only type of "evolution" that can be proven to happen.

Now this is where some people leap from micro to macro evolution and insist it's just a matter of more time... but it's not simply a matter of more time... it's a matter of numerous amino acids and enzymes which the mitochondria can't reproduce or generate through mutation or any other process we know of.

I can theoretically walk to California... that's a supported fact. I can't take that fact and claim that I can also walk to London, it just takes more time. It doesn't matter how much time I have, I can't walk to London because there is an ocean. This obstacle prevents my second theory from being valid. It may seem logical that if I can walk to California, given time, I can also walk to London.... but the fact is, there is an ocean between here and London that can't be avoided. Now.... MAYBE... someday I will discover a way to walk on water... THEN my theory might be valid. As of now, it's impossible.

That's kind of what we have in this evolution argument. MICRO-evolution happens... we can observe and test it. What doesn't happen is MACRO-evolution. There has never been any scientific evidence to prove it could have happened. They've been trying since 1859.

If I understand correctly what your premise is then you believe that biologists haven't determined that mitochondria evolve?

If that were so, it would be the one of the biggest goals in biology. Every grad student in a biology field would be looking for evidence that supports mitochondrial evolution. They're not because we've already discovered such evidence.

Your premise also suggests that biologists think that there is micro-evolution and macro-evolution. They don't. There is only evolution. It isn't logical, based on the evidence, to assume that there is an arbitrary boundary at which evolution stops, especially because that boundary itself is arbitrary. Species are differentiated only as a useful category by human beings, not by a universal creator.

Your premise suggests, also, that each genus of organism appeared fully developed. Do you accept that is what occurred?

Just as a side point: no scientific theories have been or ever will be proven. That isn't how scientific theories work. If you are looking for proof, you will never find it because it doesn't apply to scientific theories. Theories are tested through their explanatory power of the available evidence and their predictive accuracy. If the theories of evolution did not explain the all of the available evidence they would not be theories but hypotheses. If biologists were unable to make predictions with any accuracy or only with unreliable accuracy, the theories of evolution would have been discarded.

I don't believe in the theories of evolution. That would be doing science wrong. I merely tentatively accept them as models for understanding until they are either tweaked or discarded when new discoveries are made.

Also, I don't think that in this particular case your walking analogy applies.

I'm still waiting for proof gravity is real. I think God holds us down with spirituality. And until you can PROVE gravity is what holds us onto the earth I will continue to believe in my god hypothesis.

 

[sealybobo]

We have observed macro evolution

Mammals did not exist until later in the evolutionary cycle. They either evolved from earlier species or popped out of thin air

What scientific evidence do you have to support the popped out of thin air hypothesis?

First of all, there you go again demanding a theory from me in order to support your own theory. That's not in the scientific method. I don't have to present a better theory or else yours is valid. That's just not how science works. All of you need to stop doing this because it's really starting to piss me off.

First you claim we've observed it... then you go right on to say that it's 'either-or' .....well, if we've observed it, it can't be either-or and we KNOW which one because we've observed it. So what you are ACTUALLY saying is... we've observed it but we haven't observed it.

You do not know when mammals existed. You're making a speculation based on the fossils we've discovered. And I don't know why you think it's so ridiculous to say "popped into existence out of thin air" when the very best explanations ANY of you have ever come up with for origins of life... it popped into existence out of thin air! There is really no other way for it to have gotten here. I mean, you even have a theory of how the universe popped into existence out of thin air called The Big Bang. So why is it, in YOUR OWN explanations, this is acceptable... but it's ridiculous if someone else claims it?

So there is my hypothesis you demanded which does nothing to help support your hypothesis... they popped out of thin air, just like every species appears to have done in the fossil record. Some things popped into existence, some things popped out of existence and presto, here we are!

What every scientific study of biology has ever shown certainly DIDN'T happen, is one genus of living organism spawning a completely different genus of living organism. DNA blocks that possibility and that's why a dog can't fuck a cat and produce a dog-cat offspring. You can't overcome that obstacle to your hypothesis so you resort to appeals to ridicule and popularity.

OK...so your theory is that new species do not come from existing living organisms but materialized out of nowhere

We do know mammals did not exist 500 million years ago. There is ample evidence from around the world supporting that. So they either evolved from other living species or "popped" into existence out of nowhere

He truly does believe god popped out in a moment adult humans on the earth fully functional and ready to breed. He really does believe that.

 

[sealybobo]

Creationism explains everything, and in so doing, explains nothing. The beauty of the creationist model is that by invoking the whims of a Creator, they are able to explain any and all phenomena.

 

[NoNukes]

God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.

The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God.

The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all. There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.

And I supposed you just happen to have evidence of this.....?

And if God was so damn good, why did he make so many humans with defects? 1/4 of people have mental issues, and then there is cancer and other diseases.....

Again the same old drama! TOE is a stupid, blatant lie. And if TOE is a lie, then the only possibility is #ID (#Intelligent Design). Don't go astray into other arenas. If u want to talk about the providence of God, then we can discuss that in some other thread.

Prove that God exists.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Creationism explains everything, and in so doing, explains nothing. The beauty of the creationist model is that by invoking the whims of a Creator, they are able to explain any and all phenomena.

God in the Machine plot solution Deus Ex Machina

 

[Boss]

I have a question. Why did God bury all those things that look like old bones, ya know fossils?

The fossil record is no friend to evolution. We observe species suddenly appear and suddenly disappear. There is not this never-ending transitional evidence where things are becoming other things... there should be, if that's what happened.

Boss, you and I have discussed other topics before and to me you seem an intelligent fellow with an educated and skeptical mind.

Can I ask you what you would accept as evidence for common ancestry? Would you accept DNA evidence?

Do you think your standard for accepting evidence which supports atomic theory, relativity, quantum theory, economic theories, or social theories is the same for evolutionary theories?

DNA is also not a friend to macro-evolution theory. In fact, I believe it's the primary evidence which refutes the theory better than anything we've ever learned. It is the mitochondria in the DNA which essentially prevents any organism from becoming a different genera. It is sometimes flexible enough to allow adaptive changes which can spawn new species of life within the genera. That, to date, is the only type of "evolution" that can be proven to happen.

Now this is where some people leap from micro to macro evolution and insist it's just a matter of more time... but it's not simply a matter of more time... it's a matter of numerous amino acids and enzymes which the mitochondria can't reproduce or generate through mutation or any other process we know of.

I can theoretically walk to California... that's a supported fact. I can't take that fact and claim that I can also walk to London, it just takes more time. It doesn't matter how much time I have, I can't walk to London because there is an ocean. This obstacle prevents my second theory from being valid. It may seem logical that if I can walk to California, given time, I can also walk to London.... but the fact is, there is an ocean between here and London that can't be avoided. Now.... MAYBE... someday I will discover a way to walk on water... THEN my theory might be valid. As of now, it's impossible.

That's kind of what we have in this evolution argument. MICRO-evolution happens... we can observe and test it. What doesn't happen is MACRO-evolution. There has never been any scientific evidence to prove it could have happened. They've been trying since 1859.

If I understand correctly what your premise is then you believe that biologists haven't determined that mitochondria evolve?

If that were so, it would be the one of the biggest goals in biology. Every grad student in a biology field would be looking for evidence that supports mitochondrial evolution. They're not because we've already discovered such evidence.

Your premise also suggests that biologists think that there is micro-evolution and macro-evolution. They don't. There is only evolution. It isn't logical, based on the evidence, to assume that there is an arbitrary boundary at which evolution stops, especially because that boundary itself is arbitrary. Species are differentiated only as a useful category by human beings, not by a universal creator.

Your premise suggests, also, that each genus of organism appeared fully developed. Do you accept that is what occurred?

Just as a side point: no scientific theories have been or ever will be proven. That isn't how scientific theories work. If you are looking for proof, you will never find it because it doesn't apply to scientific theories. Theories are tested through their explanatory power of the available evidence and their predictive accuracy. If the theories of evolution did not explain the all of the available evidence they would not be theories but hypotheses. If biologists were unable to make predictions with any accuracy or only with unreliable accuracy, the theories of evolution would have been discarded.

I don't believe in the theories of evolution. That would be doing science wrong. I merely tentatively accept them as models for understanding until they are either tweaked or discarded when new discoveries are made.

Also, I don't think that in this particular case your walking analogy applies.

If I understand correctly what your premise is then you believe that biologists haven't determined that mitochondria evolve?

They have pretty much concluded the mitochondria cannot mutate and produce the necessary amino acids and enzymes required for a new DNA, which would be needed for a new genus. As I said, the DNA and mitochondria are amazingly versatile and can change (evolve) to a certain degree, which seems to always be within their genus taxon. There has never been any recorded account of any other kind of evolution.

Your premise also suggests that biologists think that there is micro-evolution and macro-evolution. They don't. There is only evolution. It isn't logical, based on the evidence, to assume that there is an arbitrary boundary at which evolution stops, especially because that boundary itself is arbitrary. Species are differentiated only as a useful category by human beings, not by a universal creator.

All terminology is created and dictated by humans. Nature doesn't assign definition to our terms, we assign our terms to nature. I don't have any idea what ALL biologists think, so I don't make any claims in that regard. I am speaking of evolution as an overall theory for the diversity of life. I can accept there is evolution on a micro scale because we have evidence to support that. The mitochondrial DNA doesn't have to "reinvent the wheel" in order for that type of evolution to happen. It is versatile and flexible enough to adapt to change...SOMETIMES... and sometimes it's not. But as amazing as DNA is, it cannot do what it cannot do.

Evolution on a macro scale requires DNA to do something it cannot do. It's simply not a matter of time and it's not an arbitrary boundary. It's been believed for many years... since 1859... that small changes add up to big changes. Why? Because it seems to be plausible. However, in 1859 we didn't know about the mitochondria or DNA. Our understanding of a cell was virtually nil. As we've studied this through many years of experiments and tests, we have found this theory has some obstacles it cannot overcome. The mitochondria simply cannot make the "leap" to another genera without some explanation as to where the new amino acids, enzymes and subsequent DNA came from. They thought it might be through random mutations but careful analysis of the fruit fly experiments reveals the math... it's essentially a mathematical impossibility.

I have often wondered what this "mythical false idol of Evolution" was driven by.... what makes it determine when a new genera of life is needed? How does it know when to spawn off a new form of life from something else? Is this too, a matter of mere randomness and chance? It's not natural selection because we know how that works... the strongest survive, the weakest don't... It's also not the DNA, it has no intelligent reasoning ability to know what to morph into. So what is the story here? What DRIVES this Evolution process to generate trillions and trillions of very different but interdependent life forms?

Your premise suggests, also, that each genus of organism appeared fully developed. Do you accept that is what occurred?

I don't KNOW what occurred and again, that doesn't matter with regard to YOUR theory. I don't have to submit a "better idea" in order for your theory to not be valid. It either stands or fails on it's own, regardless of any other theory. Having said that, the fossil record certainly seems to show things appearing suddenly and disappearing suddenly. Why? I have no idea.... but it doesn't appear this cross-genus evolution is happening because we don't see the evidence in the fossil record and it should be full of it, if that's the case. Also... we should be able to observe in modern biology, instances of one genus and another genus, spawning an entirely new genus and we don't. If we observed that happening, even just once in a blue moon, it might lend some credence to the macro-evolution idea. But we now understand why that doesn't happen.. the DNA prohibits it. It doesn't matter that our DNA is 98% like that of a chimp, we can't reproduce with chimps.

Just as a side point: no scientific theories have been or ever will be proven. That isn't how scientific theories work. If you are looking for proof, you will never find it because it doesn't apply to scientific theories.

Exactly! So why are the dunderheads here all making the irrational claim that this is indisputable scientific fact that cannot be questioned?

That's PRECISELY what MY argument has been this entire thread. And now... they will all pile in to AGREE with this and then go right back to arguing that it's "proven Science!"

 

[Boss]

Prove that God exists.

Exists HOW? What do you mean? I have repeatedly asked for some clarification on this... Who created God? What do you mean "created"? Who made God? What do you mean "made"? Until you can clarify what the hell you mean, I have no idea... that's up to you to tell me.

You cannot prove the existence physically of something spiritual any more than you can spiritually prove the existence of something physical. So what do you mean when you use these terms "exist" ... "created" ... "made" ...what does that MEAN? Physical existence? There's no physical proof for anything spiritual.... that would automatically render the spiritual thing physical, wouldn't it?