The Stupid Lie called The Theory of Evolution

[Boss]

There is no proof god exists either....shrug....

Are you looking for PHYSICAL proof? That might be your problem since God isn't PHYSICAL

And let's be clear... before someone identified Jupiter in a telescope, there was no proof Jupiter existed.... STILL... it DID exist, even when we didn't have proof.

I surmise that you probably don't know everything that Science has yet to discover. Just a guess... but unless you DO know, you can't ever make the claim that "no proof" of something is a valid reason to reject it's possibility.

 

[Yarddog]

There is nothing even close to anything showing this so called evolution.
If it crawled out of the ocean....it should be still crawling out of the ocean.

Well honestly, there are cases of this and more than the videoo I just posted

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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.

You doubt evolution for the same reason you doubt climate change...

you simply don't want to believe that either happened.

It's not about what I want to believe. It's about what Science has proved.

When you prove your science, I will believe it. Right now, all you really have is a theory and it's a shaky theory at best, given our modern understanding of mitochondria.

Let's back up. You do not accept the theory that any living thing has evolved over time, instead there are simply species which die out and very similar species take their place?

No.. I never have said that nothing has ever evolved over time.... AGAIN... MICRO-evolution is evident. Small adaptive changes over time to form new species... that happens. Our remarkable DNA coding allows for adaptive changes within our genera.

95% of the species our planet has hosted have gone extinct. We see in the fossil record, when these species died out... we also see where new species emerged... suddenly, not transitionally. If your theory were true, we could expect the fossil record to be rife with examples of cross-genus evolution and instead, we find ZIPPOLA!

No, you can not expect fossil records to be rife with perfect examples of evolution, that is a silly! The earth has transformed over billions of years, the fossils of living creatures which lived millions of years ago have been moved, shifted, buried, exposed an eroded thru the eons. It's not as simple as finding a fossil and digging a little deeper to find an older example. That's why you find ancient sea shells on mountain tops.

Here are a few examples of evolution for people who Are not fearful that their religious faith will be destroyed by scientific investigation.

12 Elegant Examples of Evolution

 

[BuckToothMoron]

There is no proof god exists either....shrug....

Are you looking for PHYSICAL proof? That might be your problem since God isn't PHYSICAL

And let's be clear... before someone identified Jupiter in a telescope, there was no proof Jupiter existed.... STILL... it DID exist, even when we didn't have proof.

I surmise that you probably don't know everything that Science has yet to discover. Just a guess... but unless you DO know, you can't ever make the claim that "no proof" of something is a valid reason to reject it's possibility.

So you need no physical proof of God, but demand a perfect fossil trail to accept evolution? Hey, whatever works for you.

 

[Boss]

There is no proof god exists either....shrug....

Are you looking for PHYSICAL proof? That might be your problem since God isn't PHYSICAL

And let's be clear... before someone identified Jupiter in a telescope, there was no proof Jupiter existed.... STILL... it DID exist, even when we didn't have proof.

I surmise that you probably don't know everything that Science has yet to discover. Just a guess... but unless you DO know, you can't ever make the claim that "no proof" of something is a valid reason to reject it's possibility.

So you need no physical proof of God, but demand a perfect fossil trail to accept evolution? Hey, whatever works for you.

Well living organisms are physical... unlike God.

 

[Boss]

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.

You doubt evolution for the same reason you doubt climate change...

you simply don't want to believe that either happened.

It's not about what I want to believe. It's about what Science has proved.

When you prove your science, I will believe it. Right now, all you really have is a theory and it's a shaky theory at best, given our modern understanding of mitochondria.

Let's back up. You do not accept the theory that any living thing has evolved over time, instead there are simply species which die out and very similar species take their place?

No.. I never have said that nothing has ever evolved over time.... AGAIN... MICRO-evolution is evident. Small adaptive changes over time to form new species... that happens. Our remarkable DNA coding allows for adaptive changes within our genera.

95% of the species our planet has hosted have gone extinct. We see in the fossil record, when these species died out... we also see where new species emerged... suddenly, not transitionally. If your theory were true, we could expect the fossil record to be rife with examples of cross-genus evolution and instead, we find ZIPPOLA!

No, you can not expect fossil records to be rife with perfect examples of evolution, that is a silly! The earth has transformed over billions of years, the fossils of living creatures which lived millions of years ago have been moved, shifted, buried, exposed an eroded thru the eons. It's not as simple as finding a fossil and digging a little deeper to find an older example. That's why you find ancient sea shells on mountain tops.

Here are a few examples of evolution for people who Are not fearful that their religious faith will be destroyed by scientific investigation.

12 Elegant Examples of Evolution

Sorry but not a single one of those 12 examples show evolution happening across genus taxa. Each one is a SPECULATION made by people who want to prove Darwin's theory. It's akin to saying... look at this, it looks like something is happening... but that's NOT SCIENCE. The layman's observation of things on the surface are very often not validated by actual science. As a matter of fact, that is precisely WHY Science was invented and became very popular among humans.

Wayyy back.... Men looked up into the sky which they noticed was moving around them.... they SPECULATED... just as you are doing here... that what appeared to be logical was the explanation... that the universe was revolving around the Earth. But Science dispelled that belief... things were not as they appeared.

Now, let's go back to your apology for the fossil record. You just posted a link to fossils from millions of years ago... setting that aside, where are all the fossils of things in transition from one genera to another? Showing me something that looks "almost like" a whale and claiming it was something in transition of becoming a whale is not proof. I need to see the transition as it happened... the original state, the next stage, the stage after that, the stage after that, on and on until a new genera is born. I don't see that, I see ONE example and a SPECULATION. Of course, you run to your apology... the fossil record is incomplete... we can't possibly find all the fossils... well, seems like that's convenient that we can't find ANY evidence in the fossil record whatsoever to support your speculation. All the billions of species of life and you can't find the supporting evidence for ANY transition from one genus to another? Nope...the fossil record repeatedly shows species coming into existence suddenly and leaving suddenly.

 

[PK1]

You're confused scientifically, again.
Speciation, whether "macroevolution" or "microevolution", reflects "small" adaptive changes in the genome to produce new species.
In the longer timeframe across thousands or millions of years ("macro"), speciation results in greater differences in group genomes, reflecting different classes beyond the species level.
Paleontological research has provided evidence reflecting patterns of speciation across taxonomy groups.

If you don't believe in science theories on how humans evolved, what is your alternative explanation?

I am not confused scientifically.... apparently YOU are.

You are taking a THEORY that hasn't been substantiated with facts and trying to make that the fact. You support the theory of macro-evolution on the back of micro-evolution. Science doesn't work that way. We don't piggyback one theory on top of another. Every theory has to stand on it's own merit and macro-evolution simply doesn't do that.
...
Mutations can only happen within the parameters of the mitochondria and it's affiliated amino acids and enzymes and this restricts the organism to the genera in which it belongs.

---
You believe in pseudoscience of the YE (young earth) creationist variety,
LOL!
The scientific community does not have 2 theories of evolution.
Speciation explains species differentiation across all taxonomy classes. It's the time scale that creationists dispute and focus on the term "macroevolution" as if it's a different theory.

In trying to mislead non-scientific readers, you imply that DNA mutations can only happen within the mitochondria, which harbor only a small percentage of the DNA in a eukaryotic cell; most DNA is in the cell nucleus.
What a quack job you are!
.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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.

I have to admit that you are compelling truth that evolution is not a universal. You remain in the childhood fairy tale stage that most of us outgrew by the time we were four.

 

[Boss]

You're confused scientifically, again.
Speciation, whether "macroevolution" or "microevolution", reflects "small" adaptive changes in the genome to produce new species.
In the longer timeframe across thousands or millions of years ("macro"), speciation results in greater differences in group genomes, reflecting different classes beyond the species level.
Paleontological research has provided evidence reflecting patterns of speciation across taxonomy groups.

If you don't believe in science theories on how humans evolved, what is your alternative explanation?

I am not confused scientifically.... apparently YOU are.

You are taking a THEORY that hasn't been substantiated with facts and trying to make that the fact. You support the theory of macro-evolution on the back of micro-evolution. Science doesn't work that way. We don't piggyback one theory on top of another. Every theory has to stand on it's own merit and macro-evolution simply doesn't do that.
...
Mutations can only happen within the parameters of the mitochondria and it's affiliated amino acids and enzymes and this restricts the organism to the genera in which it belongs.

---
You believe in pseudoscience of the YE (young earth) creationist variety,
LOL!
The scientific community does not have 2 theories of evolution.
Speciation explains species differentiation across all taxonomy classes. It's the time scale that creationists dispute and focus on the term "macroevolution" as if it's a different theory.

In trying to mislead non-scientific readers, you imply that DNA mutations can only happen within the mitochondria, which harbor only a small percentage of the DNA in a eukaryotic cell; most DNA is in the cell nucleus.
What a quack job you are!
.

See the fruit fly experiments... DNA mutations do not result in producing new amino acids and enzymes to enable a new genus. This is not pseudoscience or YEC... this is science and is backed by nearly 100 years of research.

Yes, there ARE two variations of evolution theorized. Time scale is irrelevant because it doesn't matter how much time you devote to it, a mitochondria DNA can't produce a new amino acid to create a new genus through mutation or any other means. Adaptive changes over time can create new species within a genus taxon and that's ALL you have any evidence to support at this time. The Macro argument simply piggybacks on this evidence to claim that these small adaptive changes over time eventually result in new genera... but the mitochondria doesn't cooperate with that theory.

The main problem here is, you are clinging to a theory from 1859... when a cell was thought to be as complicated as a ping pong ball. It's largely observatory nonsense that science has disproved through the discovery of DNA and years of experiments. Yet you are clinging to it like a religious belief.... ironically, while criticizing the beliefs of others.

 

[Old Rocks]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807134008.htm

A newly discovered fossil reveals the evolutionary adaptations of a 165-million-year-old proto-mammal, providing evidence that traits such as hair and fur originated well before the rise of the first true mammals. The biological features of this ancient mammalian relative, namedMegaconus mammaliaformis, are described by scientists from the University of Chicago in the Aug 8 issue of Nature.

"We finally have a glimpse of what may be the ancestral condition of all mammals, by looking at what is preserved in Megaconus. It allows us to piece together poorly understood details of the critical transition of modern mammals from pre-mammalian ancestors," said Zhe-Xi Luo, professor of organismal biology and anatomy at the University of Chicago.

Discovered in Inner Mongolia, China, Megaconus is one of the best-preserved fossils of the mammaliaform groups, which are long-extinct relatives to modern mammals. Dated to be around 165 million years old,Megaconus co-existed with feathered dinosaurs in the Jurassic era, nearly 100 million years before Tyrannosaurus Rex roamed Earth.

From feathered dinosaurs to the horses of the John Day Formation, we have a great many transitional fossils. What you people are calling for is a fossil for every little feature change. Since the chances of any creature becoming a fossil are exceedingly small, you are not going to get that.

From our own DNA, we see our relationships to all the other living creatures on Earth. Deny all you want, the reality will outlive your lies.

 

[Boss]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807134008.htm

A newly discovered fossil reveals the evolutionary adaptations of a 165-million-year-old proto-mammal, providing evidence that traits such as hair and fur originated well before the rise of the first true mammals. The biological features of this ancient mammalian relative, namedMegaconus mammaliaformis, are described by scientists from the University of Chicago in the Aug 8 issue of Nature.

"We finally have a glimpse of what may be the ancestral condition of all mammals, by looking at what is preserved in Megaconus. It allows us to piece together poorly understood details of the critical transition of modern mammals from pre-mammalian ancestors," said Zhe-Xi Luo, professor of organismal biology and anatomy at the University of Chicago.

Discovered in Inner Mongolia, China, Megaconus is one of the best-preserved fossils of the mammaliaform groups, which are long-extinct relatives to modern mammals. Dated to be around 165 million years old,Megaconus co-existed with feathered dinosaurs in the Jurassic era, nearly 100 million years before Tyrannosaurus Rex roamed Earth.

From feathered dinosaurs to the horses of the John Day Formation, we have a great many transitional fossils. What you people are calling for is a fossil for every little feature change. Since the chances of any creature becoming a fossil are exceedingly small, you are not going to get that.

From our own DNA, we see our relationships to all the other living creatures on Earth. Deny all you want, the reality will outlive your lies.

A LOT of words to explain away a total LACK of evidence to support your SPECULATIVE theory.

I explained earlier, DNA is not a friend to macro-evolution theory. It's is probably the strongest scientific argument to date which dispels such a theory because the mitochondria is unable to reproduce without a certain combination of amino acids and enzymes which it cannot randomly produce through mutations or any other means.

Yes, the layman who doesn't understand genetics may think that it's compelling that we share 98% of our DNA with chimps... it means absolutely nothing from a science perspective. That 2% is very important. We also share 58% of our DNA with a banana... it doesn't mean we have a common ancestor with a banana. I don't care how many billions of years you want to go back... we just don't. Period.

Yet... that is fundamentally what you are trying to say with this theory... that ALL life came from some ubiquitous single cell life form billions of years ago. You don't have the science to support that, you can't support that idea with science and so you proceed to attack people who point that out to you with the same fanatical zeal as the religious folk you seem to despise.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, an anonymous poster on a message board states that all the genetic biologists in the world are wrong. Oh, who to believe? Have you ever even taken a college level biology course?

 

[Boss]

So, an anonymous poster on a message board states that all the genetic biologists in the world are wrong. Oh, who to believe? Have you ever even taken a college level biology course?

I sure have... you need that for a degree in a field of science.

You've posted not a damn thing from any genetic biologist in terms of scientific evidence. You can't because it doesn't exist... all you have are speculative theories that are untested and unproved at this time. Your archaeologists and paleontologists keep finding things that look like other things and you keep building your case based on how things appear.... that's specifically why science was invented, to dispel the conventional wisdom of things being as they appear, and examining evidence objectively without regard for common beliefs.

In short... You have abandoned Science. You are now practicing a faith-based belief. Congratulations!

 

[sealybobo]

All organic molecules are composed of inorganic elements.

What else would they be composed of?

The point is that there is no reason a chemical reaction could not have occurred that formed the first organic molecules,

something you denied was possible.

I didn't deny anything was possible. I am arguing what is proven. There are lots of things we can imagine there being no reason why... that's not science, that's speculation. It's really no different to say "there is no reason a God could not have created the universe with life already in it." ...Something you deny is possible.

Now... back to your theory... what was so special about these first molecules? Why are we unable to cause a chemical reaction to create organisms in a lab? If your theory is true you should be able to repeatedly test it with predictable results. Where is the science? We know that pretty much anything that bonds with carbon can become organic but that doesn't explain why it happens.... we don't know why, like billions of other things we don't know why. If the gravitational constant hadn't been precisely as it was, the reactionary fission of hydrogen would have never created carbon. There would be no carbon in our universe, thus, no life.

I'm a big believer in Science. But that doesn't mean what many of you assume. I don't accept conclusions made by conventional wisdom exploiting Science. I guess you can call me a Science "purist" in that sense.

If you were in a room with real scientists they'd give you tons of evidence/reasons/facts why evolution is basically a scientific fact. No anti evolution scientist is taken seriously.

But you know that doesn't disprove your generic God which isn't in any holy book I know of.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, an anonymous poster on a message board states that all the genetic biologists in the world are wrong. Oh, who to believe? Have you ever even taken a college level biology course?

I sure have... you need that for a degree in a field of science.

You've posted not a damn thing from any genetic biologist in terms of scientific evidence. You can't because it doesn't exist... all you have are speculative theories that are untested and unproved at this time. Your archaeologists and paleontologists keep finding things that look like other things and you keep building your case based on how things appear.... that's specifically why science was invented, to dispel the conventional wisdom of things being as they appear, and examining evidence objectively without regard for common beliefs.

In short... You have abandoned Science. You are now practicing a faith-based belief. Congratulations!

Boss, old boy, you sure are full of shit. A degree in what discipline? Phrenology?

Determining Divergence Times of the Major Kingdoms of Living Organisms with a Protein Clock | Science

Abstract
Amino acid sequence data from 57 different enzymes were used to determine the divergence times of the major biological groupings. Deuterostomes and protostomes split about 670 million years ago and plants, animals, and fungi last shared a common ancestor about a billion years ago. With regard to these protein sequences, plants are slightly more similar to animals than are the fungi. In contrast, phylogenetic analysis of the same sequences indicates that fungi and animals shared a common ancestor more recently than either did with plants, the greater difference resulting from the fungal lineage changing faster than the animal and plant lines over the last 965 million years. The major protist lineages have been changing at a somewhat faster rate than other eukaryotes and split off about 1230 million years ago. If the rate of change has been approximately constant, then prokaryotes and eukaryotes last shared a common ancestor about 2 billion years ago, archaebacterial sequences being measurably more similar to eukaryotic ones than are eubacterial ones.

 

[sealybobo]

Your means of argument is to simply set the burden of proof measure so high that of course it cannot be met.

In step two, once you declare that your proof requirement hasn't been met, you reject evolution on an arbitrary Pass/Fail grading system.

That is not how science works.

It's EXACTLY how Science works.

Science works by setting the burden of proof so high that nothing can be deemed factual?

Are you sure about that?

Science doesn't conclude. Science is the practice of asking questions about what we don't know. Once you have drawn a conclusion, Science is over... it's work is done. You are now practicing Faith in a Belief.

Proof, in terms of what you believe, is totally subjective. What you may find as proof, I may find meaningless. I often like to use the O.J. Simpson trial to demonstrate this point... the jury had the proof he was guilty, they simply didn't believe the proof.

In essence, Science can't prove anything, it merely presents a prediction of probability of possibilities. WE use that to draw conclusion... to say we have "proven" something. Science has nothing to do with our faith.

Evolution is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science.

Funny a believer in generic God and supposed scientist would argue against such a well substantiated scientific theory.

You defend organized religion even though you don't believe any of them. Typical theist. You don't care those other faiths are wrong you have a unholy alliance not to attack each other.

Christians Jews Mormons think you are full of shit. You think they are. Muslims think you all are fos. Mormons think you all are wrong.

But you defend each other because ultimately you share the same delusion.

 

[sealybobo]

A theist would rather hear you're praying to the wrong God then they like to hear that there is no God at all. A lot different to say your bs is wrong but mine is right than to say it's all. Bs.

For example Jews agree with me Mary wasn't a virgin and Jesus wasn't the son of man. But they keep quiet because the moses stories are fake too.

 

[sealybobo]

Science goes with the best explanation.

No, it quite simply DOESN'T. In fact, that is the antithesis of Science and pretty much the reason Science became a thing. Humans were running around "going with the best explanation" of things.... but sometimes, the best conventional wisdom explanation of something is completely wrong.

We still go with the best explanation until a better one comes along. What is you hypothesis?

 

[sealybobo]

All organic molecules are composed of inorganic elements.

What else would they be composed of?

The point is that there is no reason a chemical reaction could not have occurred that formed the first organic molecules,

something you denied was possible.

I didn't deny anything was possible. I am arguing what is proven. There are lots of things we can imagine there being no reason why... that's not science, that's speculation. It's really no different to say "there is no reason a God could not have created the universe with life already in it." ...Something you deny is possible.

Now... back to your theory... what was so special about these first molecules? Why are we unable to cause a chemical reaction to create organisms in a lab? If your theory is true you should be able to repeatedly test it with predictable results. Where is the science? We know that pretty much anything that bonds with carbon can become organic but that doesn't explain why it happens.... we don't know why, like billions of other things we don't know why. If the gravitational constant hadn't been precisely as it was, the reactionary fission of hydrogen would have never created carbon. There would be no carbon in our universe, thus, no life.

I'm a big believer in Science. But that doesn't mean what many of you assume. I don't accept conclusions made by conventional wisdom exploiting Science. I guess you can call me a Science "purist" in that sense.

50% of population believes in evolution and 99% of scientists believe I evolution. You fall in with the nuts

 

[sealybobo]

Your means of argument is to simply set the burden of proof measure so high that of course it cannot be met.

In step two, once you declare that your proof requirement hasn't been met, you reject evolution on an arbitrary Pass/Fail grading system.

That is not how science works.

It's EXACTLY how Science works.

Science works by setting the burden of proof so high that nothing can be deemed factual?

Are you sure about that?

Science doesn't conclude. .

Oh for chrissakes...

The steps of the scientific method are to:

• Ask a Question
• Do Background Research
• Construct a Hypothesis
• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
• Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
• Communicate Your Results

"Draw a conclusion" is not an act of Science... it is a human act.

Everything a scientist does in the natural world is a human act. What other kinds of acts are there?