Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?

[rightwinger]

Your befuddled about the sciences supporting evolution because you understand none of it. Your silly "randomness and accidental" comment is classic befuddlement / coaching from creation ministries.

The "randomness and accidental" description suggests an attribute that doesn't apply to the natural world. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not.

This is all theory. There is not one shred of evidence that it could even happen. If you knew anything about genetics, you would know that there is strong evidence that DNA cannot add new information to itself. Since this is required for evolution to occur, you can see the problem for evolutionists.

Actually, Darwin's Theory has withstood the rigors of the scientific method and peer review. So yes, it's provable and not in question among the relevant scientific community.

If you know otherwise, you may wish to email your work to the journal Nature for example.

If you are so certain that you have the data refuting "Darwinism", put you work before peer review and let's see how you do.

There does not exist a significant "anti-evolution" movement outside of Christian creationism. This is (and you must be honest with yourself here) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective. It's painfully obvious that your arguments are in lockstep with those of the Institute for Creation Research, the Center for Scientific Creationism, or the Discovery Institute.

Further, were you not essentially arguing as a classic Creationist, I would expect you to actually have a scientific alternative to propose, which (of course) Creationists and their ID brethren do not. Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins. This is also the manner in which you are arguing. If I am mistaken regarding your perspective here, it is not because you gave me any reason to see you as unique.

Why should we be expected to refute the theory of evolution? There is nothing to refute.

Correct. Science is a global conspiracy.

Evolution is not science. Never was. The theory sounded good, back in the 19th century but the more we learn, the more ridiculous it looks.

Biological analysis, fossil comparisons, geologic studies and DNA analysis are all scientific proof of DNA

God is a theory unsupported by science

 

[orogenicman]

If you are talking about the embryonic gill thing, you didn't prove that. Scientists did. And it doesn't disprove evolution. Next.

I proved the idiot who posted that nonsense wrong by using evidence supplied by someone else. The fact that he believed it in the first place shows what a credulous fool he is. Next.

The fact that you believe evolution and the scientists who use it for everything from designing advanced medicine to determining human ancestry be a lie shows us what a willfully ignorant fool you are. Congratulations.

Here's a news flash for you, skippy. Evolution is not Science. It cannot be falsified with the scientific method. It is what's know as observation science. What that means is that they look for evidence and try to make it fit their belief in a naturalistic theory of origins. It doesn't matter how ridiculous their claims are. The gullible will swallow it whole, because the Almighty scientists said it. Science is their religion.

Actually, it can. Find a Cambrian bunny rabbit. THAT would falsify the theory of evolution. I wish you good luck finding one. Your 'observation science' is nothing but a gadget invented by Ken Ham in order to convince the intellectually weak that biology is less of a science than it really is. And your characterization of the science as being one that creates a theory and then looks for evidence to prove it is not what any science does, much less evolutionary biology. It is, however, exactly what creationism does. Darwin didn't create a theory and then look for evidence to support it. He spent decades compiling data before he came up with the theory that explains the data he already had. THAT is what all the sciences do.

OK, genius. Why don't you tell us how the first cell originated. What was that? Scientists don't know? How can this be?

If you had one ounce of science education, you would never have asked that question in a thread concerned with the biological theory of evolution. Why? Because the biological theory of evolution (and this is at least the tenth time I've pointed this out in this thread alone, so pay fucking attention, write it down) explains and describes the diversity of life, not its origin.

OK. Try this. How about you tell us how species evolve? That should be easy, since it's settled science.

So you are telling me that your memory is so fucking piss poor that you cannot remember all the times in this thread that people answered that question? Damn.

I believe that science tells us that they somehow add new information to their DNA. Is that correct? If this is true, why don't we have a single example of this ever happening? There is also the fact that that you cannot add new information to DNA. It can only work with what's available.

Your argument above is creationist argument 102. And for convenience, I'll give you the talk.origins response:

CB102 Mutations adding information

Response:

1. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
   • increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
   • increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
   • novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
   • novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
   
   If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.
2. A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
   • Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
   • RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
   • Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
   The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.
3. According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).
4. The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).

There is also no evidence of beneficial mutations. Not a single one. Mutations actually DESTROY INFORMATION. This is a scientific fact.

Is that right? Well, mr. righto, perhaps you can point to some links to peer reviewed science that makes this case. While you are finding the peer reviewed science to support your extraordinary claim, here is a response I am providing you from talk.origins since your claim here is right out of the creationist playbook, and is known as creationist argument 101:

CB101 Most mutations harmful

Claim CB101:

Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.

Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.

Response:

1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).
   
   The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
   • Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
   • Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
   • Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
   • A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
   • Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
   • In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
3. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).
4. High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).
5. Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).

You can cling to your little fairy tale. People who can think for themselves know better. You believe in evolution because you WANT too. Because the alternative is abhorrent to you.

Speaking of alternatives, I think I can speak for everyone here, supporters and critics of science that you young earth creationists have produced no peer reviewed scientific alternative to the biological theory of evolution. Your only response is "god did it". And that is not an alternative to a scientific theory such as the biological theory of evolution because, as a religious tautology, it doesn't actually explain anything.

You know, I am really disappointed in you creationists. One would think that after all this time, and as often as these old arguments have been refuted that you would at least have the decency to have come up with some new material to make us laugh at. Unfortunately, you people can't even come up with original material, and that's just sad.[/quote]

 

[Mr.Right]

I proved the idiot who posted that nonsense wrong by using evidence supplied by someone else. The fact that he believed it in the first place shows what a credulous fool he is. Next.

The fact that you believe evolution and the scientists who use it for everything from designing advanced medicine to determining human ancestry be a lie shows us what a willfully ignorant fool you are. Congratulations.

Here's a news flash for you, skippy. Evolution is not Science. It cannot be falsified with the scientific method. It is what's know as observation science. What that means is that they look for evidence and try to make it fit their belief in a naturalistic theory of origins. It doesn't matter how ridiculous their claims are. The gullible will swallow it whole, because the Almighty scientists said it. Science is their religion.

Actually, it can. Find a Cambrian bunny rabbit. THAT would falsify the theory of evolution. I wish you good luck finding one. Your 'observation science' is nothing but a gadget invented by Ken Ham in order to convince the intellectually weak that biology is less of a science than it really is. And your characterization of the science as being one that creates a theory and then looks for evidence to prove it is not what any science does, much less evolutionary biology. It is, however, exactly what creationism does. Darwin didn't create a theory and then look for evidence to support it. He spent decades compiling data before he came up with the theory that explains the data he already had. THAT is what all the sciences do.

OK, genius. Why don't you tell us how the first cell originated. What was that? Scientists don't know? How can this be?

If you had one ounce of science education, you would never have asked that question in a thread concerned with the biological theory of evolution. Why? Because the biological theory of evolution (and this is at least the tenth time I've pointed this out in this thread alone, so pay fucking attention, write it down) explains and describes the diversity of life, not its origin.

OK. Try this. How about you tell us how species evolve? That should be easy, since it's settled science.

So you are telling me that your memory is so fucking piss poor that you cannot remember all the times in this thread that people answered that question? Damn.

I believe that science tells us that they somehow add new information to their DNA. Is that correct? If this is true, why don't we have a single example of this ever happening? There is also the fact that that you cannot add new information to DNA. It can only work with what's available.

Your argument above is creationist argument 102. And for convenience, I'll give you the talk.origins response:

CB102 Mutations adding information

Response:

1. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
   • increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
   • increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
   • novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
   • novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
   
   If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.
2. A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
   • Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
   • RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
   • Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
   The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.
3. According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).
4. The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).

There is also no evidence of beneficial mutations. Not a single one. Mutations actually DESTROY INFORMATION. This is a scientific fact.

Is that right? Well, mr. righto, perhaps you can point to some links to peer reviewed science that makes this case. While you are finding the peer reviewed science to support your extraordinary claim, here is a response I am providing you from talk.origins since your claim here is right out of the creationist playbook, and is known as creationist argument 101:

CB101 Most mutations harmful

Claim CB101:

Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.

Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.

Response:

1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).
   
   The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
   • Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
   • Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
   • Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
   • A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
   • Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
   • In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
3. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).
4. High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).
5. Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).

You can cling to your little fairy tale. People who can think for themselves know better. You believe in evolution because you WANT too. Because the alternative is abhorrent to you.

Speaking of alternatives, I think I can speak for everyone here, supporters and critics of science that you young earth creationists have produced no peer reviewed scientific alternative to the biological theory of evolution. Your only response is "god did it". And that is not an alternative to a scientific theory such as the biological theory of evolution because, as a religious tautology, it doesn't actually explain anything.

You know, I am really disappointed in you creationists. One would think that after all this time, and as often as these old arguments have been refuted that you would at least have the decency to have come up with some new material to make us laugh at. Unfortunately, you people can't even come up with original material, and that's just sad.

[/QUOTE]
OK. You win. You're right. Happy now? In case you missed it, that was sarcasm. You're not interested in intelligent debate. You simply want to prove you're right. I'm done with you. Good riddance.

 

[jillian]

You think the koolaid drinkers think or examine data that does not conform to their preconceptions?

science deniers are funny

 

[Tuatara]

You think the koolaid drinkers think or examine data that does not conform to their preconceptions?

science deniers are funny

I find them scary. How can people be so stupid. They are the modern day flat earth believers.

 

[orogenicman]

OK. You win. You're right. Happy now? In case you missed it, that was sarcasm. You're not interested in intelligent debate. You simply want to prove you're right. I'm done with you. Good riddance.

OMG, you admit that you were wrong, then claim that all this time when you have been using all the standard creationist arguments, that suddenly when handed your hat, you feign sarcasm? And then claim that I am not interested in debate? That'd be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

Cheers,

 

[eots]

Origin by Design - Harold G. Coffin Robert H. Brown R. James Gibson - Google Books

The Age-of-the-Earth Debate - Scientific American

Top 10 Space Conspiracy Theories - HowStuffWorks

Its sad really..your use of strawman it reeks of some kind of desperation I do not understand

Your meetings at the Flat Earth Society must be a real hoot.

flat earth ? you really do live in private world of your own little Imaginings ,don't you

 

[rightwinger]

You think the koolaid drinkers think or examine data that does not conform to their preconceptions?

science deniers are funny

What's the deal with Gravity?

You know it is just a theory don't you?

You can't provide any scientific proof that gravity exists

 

[rightwinger]

 

[S.J.]

Evolution is a....Fact

God is a theory

A fact? Then show us the proof.

The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence

God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence

No it isn't. That's just your leap. Show us proof that one species became another.

 

[orogenicman]

Evolution is a....Fact

God is a theory

A fact? Then show us the proof.

The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence

God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence

No it isn't. That's just your leap. Show us proof that one species became another.

I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:

Evolution Frequently Asked Questions

1. How can one species "turn into" another?

One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.

 

[eots]

Evolution is a....Fact

God is a theory

A fact? Then show us the proof.

The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence

God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence

No it isn't. That's just your leap. Show us proof that one species became another.

I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:

Evolution Frequently Asked Questions

1. How can one species "turn into" another?

One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.

Nice ..story

 

[S.J.]

Evolution is a....Fact

God is a theory

A fact? Then show us the proof.

The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence

God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence

No it isn't. That's just your leap. Show us proof that one species became another.

I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:

Evolution Frequently Asked Questions

1. How can one species "turn into" another?

One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.

I asked for proof, not speculation. Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?

 

[orogenicman]

Evolution is a....Fact

God is a theory

A fact? Then show us the proof.

The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence

God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence

No it isn't. That's just your leap. Show us proof that one species became another.

I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:

Evolution Frequently Asked Questions

1. How can one species "turn into" another?

One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.

I asked for proof, not speculation. Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?

First of all, science is not about proof. Mathematics is about proof. Science is about verifiable, repeatable evidence. You can't get past 5th grade science, and yet you call me a moron? That's very funny.

 

[Mr.Right]

Evolution is a....Fact

God is a theory

A fact? Then show us the proof.

The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence

God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence

No it isn't. That's just your leap. Show us proof that one species became another.

I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:

Evolution Frequently Asked Questions

1. How can one species "turn into" another?

One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.

I asked for proof, not speculation. Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?

They have no proof. It takes as much faith, if not more, to believe evolution rather than Creation. Evolution has countless impossible hurdles to jump through. Creation has just one. The existence of God. The simplest explanation is usually the truth.

 

[Mr.Right]

A fact? Then show us the proof.

The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence

God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence

No it isn't. That's just your leap. Show us proof that one species became another.

I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:

Evolution Frequently Asked Questions

1. How can one species "turn into" another?

One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.

I asked for proof, not speculation. Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?

First of all, science is not about proof. Mathematics is about proof. Science is about verifiable, repeatable evidence. You can't get past 5th grade science, and yet you call me a moron? That's very funny.

And yet evolution has no verifiable, repeatable evidence. That should tell you something right there. Assuming you had a functioning brain, that is.

 

[orogenicman]

A fact? Then show us the proof.

The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence

God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence

No it isn't. That's just your leap. Show us proof that one species became another.

I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:

Evolution Frequently Asked Questions

1. How can one species "turn into" another?

One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.

I asked for proof, not speculation. Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?

They have no proof. It takes as much faith, if not more, to believe evolution rather than Creation. Evolution has countless impossible hurdles to jump through. Creation has just one. The existence of God. The simplest explanation is usually the truth.

I take it you also believe in reincarnation, because if appears that you have returned from a previous life as a projector.

Cheers,

 

[orogenicman]

The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence

God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence

No it isn't. That's just your leap. Show us proof that one species became another.

I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:

Evolution Frequently Asked Questions

1. How can one species "turn into" another?

One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.

I asked for proof, not speculation. Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?

First of all, science is not about proof. Mathematics is about proof. Science is about verifiable, repeatable evidence. You can't get past 5th grade science, and yet you call me a moron? That's very funny.

And yet evolution has no verifiable, repeatable evidence. That should tell you something right there. Assuming you had a functioning brain, that is.

What evidence for evolution do you believe is not verifiable, or repeatable. Be specific.

 

[S.J.]

A fact? Then show us the proof.

The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence

God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence

No it isn't. That's just your leap. Show us proof that one species became another.

I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:

Evolution Frequently Asked Questions

1. How can one species "turn into" another?

One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.

I asked for proof, not speculation. Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?

First of all, science is not about proof. Mathematics is about proof. Science is about verifiable, repeatable evidence. You can't get past 5th grade science, and yet you call me a moron? That's very funny.

Translation: I don't have any proof but you should believe me anyway because I'm so smart.

 

[eots]

No it isn't. That's just your leap. Show us proof that one species became another.

I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:

Evolution Frequently Asked Questions

1. How can one species "turn into" another?

One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.

I asked for proof, not speculation. Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?

First of all, science is not about proof. Mathematics is about proof. Science is about verifiable, repeatable evidence. You can't get past 5th grade science, and yet you call me a moron? That's very funny.

And yet evolution has no verifiable, repeatable evidence. That should tell you something right there. Assuming you had a functioning brain, that is.

What evidence for evolution do you believe is not verifiable, or repeatable. Be specific.

well you seem refuse to accept there is no evidence or observation of one species transition to another and try to explain it away with a story that could rival that of noah and seems to require faith