Evidence for Evolution & Evolution 101

[RandomGuy]

This is a thread about the evidence for evolution, in order to provide a basic grounding of understanding for those who are unfamiliar with it.


Evolution, defined:

the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. "Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations"

Not evolution:
Abiogenesis- how life first arose on the earth
Cosmology- origins and nature of the universe

Required assertions:

1) Offspring retain traits from parents, now known to be passed on through DNA
Support for this assertion has developed into the field of genetics a basic background is here:
http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~mcclean/plsc431/science/scimeth2.htm


2) Actions of selection will act to increase, or decrease frequencies of traits in populations over time.
Support for this assertion was ultimately found in the field of genetics as well, although many modern studies on short-lived species subjected to both natural and artificial selection are available, e.g.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution


Evolution 101:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution

The above link is a fair starting explanation as any I have seen.

A few ground rules:
1) If you wish to provide a criticism of the theory that you think is valid, I will address it once. If it is found to be logically flawed, or worse, factually mistaken, I will provide evidence of the logical flaw or mistaken fact, once. Repeating the same flawed fact or argument will simply be responded to by a link that points to the flaw was first addressed.


Luckily for me there are plenty of places where most commonly presented inaccuracies and flawed arguments have been addressed, often decades ago.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
This list making identifying previously debunked assertions and factual mistakes much easier. Before you post a criticism you should look for it there.

2) If anyone requests evidence, I will be happy to provide as much as asked for, in exchange, I would ask that the requestor read the basic introduction given above. Quid pro quo.

3) I will, for reference, keep track of flawed arguments and factual mistakes presented by editing this OP over time. This will help me having to address the same things repeatedly.

I will say, as someone who cares about the truth, that accepting evolution as the best, and pretty much only, explanation about how we arose is simply the only reasonable course, for anyone who cares about the truth, and having an accurate view of the universe.

[bigzak25]

We are obviously the creation of some alien experiment who we call God, but who created them? Fuck if I know.

[SnakeBoy]

in order to provide a basic grounding of understanding for those who are unfamiliar with it.


Great idea! This will go well, I'm sure of it.

[RandomGuy]

Great idea! This will go well, I'm sure of it.

Its fun. In the process of providing evidence and counters to the bad arguments, I learn good science and logical thinking.

Much like my participation in the politics forum.

I occasionally change my mind or that of others, and that is neat, but beside the point. :)

[RandomGuy]

We are obviously the creation of some alien experiment who we call God, but who created them? Fuck if I know.

42.

[SnakeBoy]

For those that don't want to read a lot


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fhlYFQA840

[RD2191]

Stopped reading at thread title.

[SnakeBoy]

Its fun. In the process of providing evidence and counters to the bad arguments, I learn good science and logical thinking.

Much like my participation in the politics forum.

I occasionally change my mind or that of others, and that is neat, but beside the point. :)

Whatever makes you happy. Although evolution is often an entertaining topic, what we are isn't nearly as interesting as who we are imo. So at the end of the day my view on the topic is best summarized by a great philosopher...

Yesterday I was a dog. Today I'm a dog. Tomorrow I'll probably still be a dog. Sigh! There's so little hope for advancement. -- Snoopy

[SnakeBoy]

Its fun. In the process of providing evidence and counters to the bad arguments, I learn good science and logical thinking.


Thinking about it, I don't believe you. If learning science was really your goal, you would be asking questions rather than trying to give everyone else the answers.

[Avante]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ASzDDOaLyk

[RD2191]

Thinking we all came from a fish isn't logical.

[Avante]

Thinking we all came from a fish isn't logical.

So I guess these fishy things just crawled up on shore knowing they'd find something they could eat and preceded to ........hmmmmmm? What happened next?

I;m with you, talk about some stupidity there it is.

[Blake]

So I guess these fishy things just crawled up on shore knowing they'd find something they could eat and preceded to ........hmmmmmm? What happened next?

I;m with you, talk about some stupidity there it is.

Your imagination is awful.

[Avante]

Your imagination is awful.

Are you going to just follow me from thread to thread...AGAIN..today?

GET A LIFE WITHOUT ME IN IT...ok faggot?

[Avante]

Don't many scientists question evolution?

Return to main evolution page (http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution)



David H. Bailey
1 Jan 2014 (c) 2014

It is often said that many scientists, including some with Ph.D. degrees and significant credentials in the field, now believe there are serious difficulties with modern evolutionary theory. Indeed, there are some scientists who dissent. For example, in 2005 Philip Skell, a retired chemistry professor at Pennsylvania State University and former member of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote the following [Skell2005 (http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/resources/bibliography.html#Skell2005)]:

Scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory. ... Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work. ... None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution -- it provided no support. ... In my judgment, this state of affairs has persisted mainly because too many scientists were afraid to challenge what had become a philosophical orthodoxy among their colleagues. Fortunately, that is changing as many scientists are now beginning to examine the evidence for neo-Darwinism more openly and critically in scientific journals.

In 2001 the Discovery Institute, the principal sponsoring organization for the intelligent design movement, began to form a list of scientists who question evolution. Each of the scientists on this list, known as "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism," affirmed the following statement [Dissent2010 (http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/resources/bibliography.html#Dissent2010)]:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

[Blake]

Are you going to just follow me from thread to thread...AGAIN..today?

GET A LIFE WITHOUT ME IN IT...ok faggot?

Lol angry old man.

This isn't even your thread, dumbass.

But anyone with even a rudimentary imagination should be able to come up with a reason as to why organisms started to crawl up on land out of the water and adapt/evolve.

[Blake]

Don't many scientists question evolution?

Return to main evolution page (http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution)



David H. Bailey
1 Jan 2014 (c) 2014

It is often said that many scientists, including some with Ph.D. degrees and significant credentials in the field, now believe there are serious difficulties with modern evolutionary theory. Indeed, there are some scientists who dissent. For example, in 2005 Philip Skell, a retired chemistry professor at Pennsylvania State University and former member of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote the following [Skell2005 (http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/resources/bibliography.html#Skell2005)]:

Scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory. ... Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work. ... None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution -- it provided no support. ... In my judgment, this state of affairs has persisted mainly because too many scientists were afraid to challenge what had become a philosophical orthodoxy among their colleagues. Fortunately, that is changing as many scientists are now beginning to examine the evidence for neo-Darwinism more openly and critically in scientific journals.

In 2001 the Discovery Institute, the principal sponsoring organization for the intelligent design movement, began to form a list of scientists who question evolution. Each of the scientists on this list, known as "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism," affirmed the following statement [Dissent2010 (http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/resources/bibliography.html#Dissent2010)]:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

Lo loo lololololoo "the Discovery Institute"

You're way out of your league here, fat fry. Go back to tossing out lists of athletes nobody cares about.

[Avante]

Lol angry old man.

This isn't even your thread, dumbass.

But anyone with even a rudimentary imagination should be able to come up with a reason as to why organisms started to crawl up on land out of the water and adapt/evolve.

So how come they aren't doing it now little guy?

[Avante]

Lo loo lololololoo "the Discovery Institute"

You're way out of your league here, fat fry. Go back to tossing out lists of athletes nobody cares about.

Wrong as usual, this is right down my alley.

Blake, my threads are set up for little shits like you...ok? When in others how about having some class and respect the OP and the topic, this case of Avante-itist you have is getting out of control....ok?

[Avante]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2RZzyFTTXo

[Blake]

So how come they aren't doing it now little guy?

.... But just how ancient fish made this shift to terrestrial life still remains largely a mystery. To learn more about what happened when the now-extinct fish tried living on land, scientists investigated the bichir (Polypterus senegalus), a modern African fish that has lungs for breathing air, and stubby fins it can use to pull itself along on land.

The bichir possesses many traits similar to ones seen in*fossils of stem tetrapods, the researchers said.The scientists raised groups of juvenile bichir on land for eight months to see whether these fish differed in their anatomy and how they moved on land compared with bichir raised in the water. Researchers wanted to test how life on land might trigger changes in such fish.....

http://m.livescience.com/47582-unusual-fish-bichir-animal-evolution.html

http://www.livescience.com/images/i/000/069/704/iFF/Bichir_walking2-140827.jpg?1409166110

[Avante]

But just how ancient fish made this shift to terrestrial life still remains largely a mystery.

[Blake]

But just how ancient fish made this shift to terrestrial life still remains largely a mystery.

:cry So it must not have happened! This walking air breathing fish are just created that way for fun :cry

You're out of your league. Go pick up an 8th grade science book.

[Avante]

:cry So it must not have happened! This walking air breathing fish are just created that way for fun :cry

You're out of your league. Go pick up an 8th grade science book.

Why not Google....The Bogus Theory of Evolution....little guy, educate yourself...ok?

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

http://www.authentichistory.com/diversity/african/3-coon/6-monkey/Anti-Patrick_Ewing_Evolution_Image.jpg

[ohmwrecker]

http://johndenugent.us/images/george-bush-chimp.jpg

[Blake]

Why not Google....The Bogus Theory of Evolution....little guy, educate yourself...ok?

Those books/articles etc are usually written by religious nuts with an agenda.

Just like the Discovery Institute.

[Avante]

Those books/articles etc are usually written by religious nuts with an agenda.

Just like the Discovery Institute.

No not really, so get it right...ok? You really need me to post a ton of videos/articles dedunking the theory of evolution that have nothing to do with religious nuts?

[Avante]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS5j3XccmUM

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Thinking about it, I don't believe you. If learning science was really your goal, you would be asking questions rather than trying to give everyone else the answers.

Asking questions? About what? He is presenting established facts. You cannot even argue on merit so you resort to this whine. How about examining mouse and the Christians' intent?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol Avante's argument against is that he doesn't understand.

[Avante]

:lol Avante's argument against is that he doesn't understand.

Everyone understands, it's not even as complex as the zone defense.

[Blake]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS5j3XccmUM

You're gonna have to explain how he "destroyed evolution".

All I see there is a professor that decided to become a Christian change his mind about evolution.

And now a Christian organization put that video YouTube as part of an agenda.

[Blake]

Everyone understands, it's not even as complex as the zone defense.

Everyone understands you're a simpleton

[Avante]

Everyone understands you're a simpleton

Don't forget....and fat...ok?

[ChumpDumper]

So how come they aren't doing it now little guy?http://media.giphy.com/media/Kyr8OnKRKmDbG/giphy.gif

[spurraider21]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ASzDDOaLyk
:lol robdiaz2191

what's hilarious is avante thinks this is good evidence. this is right up there with the banana video :rollin

[spurraider21]

avante still doesn't understand what "vast majority" means. nothing to see here

[Brazil]

http://media.giphy.com/media/Kyr8OnKRKmDbG/giphy.gif

:lmao

[mouse]

Page two and still no proof man evolved from a fish.

[RandomGuy]

Thinking about it, I don't believe you. If learning science was really your goal, you would be asking questions rather than trying to give everyone else the answers.

Think about it.

If one genuinely believes one is right, then is there not some moral imperative to correct other's fallacious thinking?

I believe in this case, the evidence is very overwhelming.

[Avante]

You'd think with the internet choked full of videos/articles all talking about.....the bogus theory of evolution .....something just isn't right with it.

[spurraider21]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/1357855104_fredcrane.gif

[RandomGuy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ASzDDOaLyk

Not evolution: abiogenesis.

The argument in the video is an example of "denying the antecedent"

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

Off topic, then Logical fallacy and therefore rejected.

[Avante]

Not evolution: abiogenesis.

The argument in the video is an example of "denying the antecedent"

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

Off topic, then Logical fallacy and therefore rejected.

Then there's...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snYXJBxTht4&index=5&list=PL7153AFA0E371795 9

[spurraider21]

Then there's...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snYXJBxTht4&index=5&list=PL7153AFA0E371795 9
you didn't watch this video. it is making the same mistake therandomguy pointed out.

it also makes no actual points. it just keeps repeating "its fake, its fake, its fake."

[RandomGuy]

Stopped reading at thread title.

If you want evidence, just ask. I realize that you are a human being and subject to your own biases.

https://cynicallifestyle.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/h29657e81.jpg

Unless of course, you don't care about what the evidence actually says, which is entirely possible.

If you don't care about the truth you will ignore the evidence, and refuse to learn what the theory of evolution actually is. Pretty simple.

My theory is that you do not care. Proof of that would be that you don't know what the evidence is, or what the theory is. Donning Kruger.

[spurraider21]

If you want evidence, just ask. I realize that you are a human being and subject to your own biases.

https://cynicallifestyle.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/h29657e81.jpg

Unless of course, you don't care about what the evidence actually says, which is entirely possible.

If you don't care about the truth you will ignore the evidence, and refuse to learn what the theory of evolution actually is. Pretty simple.

My theory is that you do not care. Proof of that would be that you don't know what the evidence is, or what the theory is. Donning Kruger.
he's trolling tbh

[SnakeBoy]

Think about it.

If one genuinely believes one is right, then is there not some moral imperative to correct other's fallacious thinking?

I believe in this case, the evidence is very overwhelming.

Depends on the topic as to whether there is a moral imperative or not, I don't see one with this topic. However that has nothing to do with my comment. "Learning good science" has nothing to do with why you started this thread.

[RandomGuy]

Then there's...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snYXJBxTht4&index=5&list=PL7153AFA0E371795 9

Again abiogenesis. Not evolution.

Video combines with a strawman, and factual mistakes.

Not worth rebutting in any length.

If you want evidence, all you have to do is ask.

[RandomGuy]

Depends on the topic as to whether there is a moral imperative or not, I don't see one with this topic. However that has nothing to do with my comment. "Learning good science" has nothing to do with why you started this thread.

Whether you see one is not really relevant to whether I do.

I started this thread to provide evidence, primarily. The secondary reasons parallel the reasons why I posted a "real 9-11" thread. Better to have a thread with an OP that presents a rational argument.

[Avante]

you didn't watch this video. it is making the same mistake therandomguy pointed out.

it also makes no actual points. it just keeps repeating "its fake, its fake, its fake."

Let's get something straight, I watch all these vidoes...ok? In that one right at the last we see something stupid about Allah....right? So cool that crap.

The thing is we see an awful lot of others who totally disagree with you, Why is that? How come I could post something similiar to the above every day for a year....well? Why do so many think the theory of evolution is a crock of bullshit?

[Avante]

Again abiogenesis. Not evolution.

Video combines with a strawman, and factual mistakes.

Not worth rebutting in any length.

If you want evidence, all you have to do is ask.

So nobody knows anything about this but you, right? How come I don't believe that?

[spurraider21]

Let's get something straight, I watch all these vidoes...ok? In that one right at the last we see something stupid about Allah....right? So cool that crap.

The thing is we see an awful lot of others who totally disagree with you, Why is that? How come I could post something similiar to the above every day for a year....well? Why do so many think the theory of evolution is a crock of bullshit?
there is no way you would watch that video and still post it here, as if it actually made any points.

its the equivalent of me posting a video that kept saying "evolution is real. people deny it but its real" and keeps rambling with stuff like that despite making no argument or citing any reasoning

[spurraider21]

So nobody knows anything about this but you, right? How come I don't believe that?
a vast majority of scientists think that way

Avante do you know what the words "vast majority" mean?

[RandomGuy]

he's trolling tbh

Of course.

Such trolling serves me though, since I have stated that a lot of criticisms are invalid, and showing that is one of my purposes.

If he continues, then I get to show that. If he is trolling, then his trolling serves my purposes. I win.

If he is somehow genuine in his ignorance, then I get to flesh out why and I get to outline real evidence. I still win.

A bit late, so the deets will have to wait. Sleep awaits.

[Avante]

there is no way you would watch that video and still post it here, as if it actually made any points.

its the equivalent of me posting a video that kept saying "evolution is real. people deny it but its real" and keeps rambling with stuff like that despite making no argument or citing any reasoning

There is no end to this...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg-9HKn2wmQ

Another view.

[RandomGuy]

So nobody knows anything about this but you, right? How come I don't believe that?

You can know as much as I do, if you bother reading.

Not hard by any stretch.

Have you read the link to the explanation in the OP?

[Avante]

You can know as much as I do, if you bother reading.

Not hard by any stretch.

Have you read the link to the explanation in the OP?

I was reading about the theory of evolution 30 years ago. And still don't buy it at all.

I've also been reading stuff like this just as long...

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

[spurraider21]

Avante do you know what "vast majority" means?

[Avante]

Avante do you know what "vast majority" means?

Yep, those that believe in some God being responsible for all this.


So this is simply wrong?


The "Tree of Life" is falling

New discoveries are bringing down the whole notion of a "tree of life", as passages from an article in the mainstream magazine New Scientist show:26 "The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened." "For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. 'For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,' says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach."
"But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. 'We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,' says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change." "The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes". "As more and more genes were sequenced, it became clear that the patterns of relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were routinely swapping genetic material with other species - often across huge taxonomic distances". " 'There's promiscuous exchange of genetic information across diverse groups,' says Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine." "As early as 1993, some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea the tree of life was more like a web. In 1999, Doolittle made the provocative claim that 'the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree'.13 'The tree of life is not something that exists in nature, it's a way that humans classify nature,' he says."


Why is it we are totally surrounded by that sort of thing today? So many not believing in Darwin's theory. How come everyone isn't accepting it as the way it really was? I don't think you really understasnd just how many out there aren't buying it at all and totally disagree with with you.

[SnakeBoy]

Whether you see one is not really relevant to whether I do.

I started this thread to provide evidence, primarily. The secondary reasons parallel the reasons why I posted a "real 9-11" thread. Better to have a thread with an OP that presents a rational argument.

That's fine, like I said before whatever makes you happy. I just said I didn't believe that learning good science had anything to do with why you started the thread and you've proven that to be true.

[spurraider21]

Avante doesn't understand the concept of a vast majority

[Avante]

Endless....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPl5h17taUI

[Avante]

Avante doesn't understand the concept of a vast majority

A vast majority had the Steelers beating the Jets, that "vast majority" was wrong.

The "vast majority" had Mike Tyson beating Buster Douglas, guess what?

The "vast majority" believes in God, yet you don't.

[mouse]

Remember Science never lies.

FUaJeNSkbC0

[Avante]

Just tonight I've read numerous articles laughing in the face of the theory of evolution, saw videos talking about how wrong it is. So I just ignore all that because a couple internet kooks thin.....hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

I think I'll go with those who don't think sailors were raptists.

[Avante]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWDRz5cSziQ


Is it at all possible that those of you who think evolution is valid were fed a load of crap? If you don't read or watch anything I've posted please watch this video. So they are wrong and whoever taught you years ago know better....right?

I have a great book on the Olympic games, in that book they talk about how Eddie Tolan (first black to win the Olympic 100m) won the 100m, the 200m and anchored the 4x1 relay to victory. Now 99.9% of anyone reading this book wouldn't think twice about that. But......in 1932 the USA brought a team to those Olympics only there to run the 4x1.....none of our 100m guys were on that team, including Eddie Tolan.

Don't believe everything you are told.

[Avante]

It's 1936 and Jesse Owens has just won the Olympic 100m in 10.3. He is the fastest man in the world (no not really that was the injured Eulace Peacock). Now if someone would have asked the scientific world what the limits of human beings were in the 100m do you really think they come up with 9.58? Of course not, they would have worked around 10.3 and probably came up with 9.9ish. No way they see a guy 6-5 with a 400/200m background running a 100m, that was unheard of in 1936.

Give it up people, we did not evolve from fish....ok, that's fucking stupid and only a moron would buy that bullshit.

How come fish aren't leaving the ocean today?


http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

[spurraider21]

It's 1936 and Jesse Owens has just won the Olympic 100m in 10.3. He is the fastest man in the world (no not really that was the injured Eulace Peacock). Now if someone would have asked the scientific world what the limits of human beings were in the 100m do you really think they come up with 9.58? Of course not, they would have worked around 10.3 and probably came up with 9.9ish. No way they see a guy 6-5 with a 400/200m background running a 100m, that was unheard of in 1936.
do you have a link that proves that the scientific community as a whole had set these limits on humans?


Give it up people, we did not evolve from fish....ok, that's fucking stupid and only a moron would buy that bullshit.

How come fish aren't leaving the ocean today?
http://media.giphy.com/media/Kyr8OnKRKmDbG/giphy.gif



http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php
who do you think corrected those theories? oh wait, scientists

[z0sa]

robdiaz, avante - idiots who deny facts
snakeboy - some personal bias blinding him, unfortunately
mouse - #justmousethings

[Avante]

do you have a link that proves that the scientific community as a whole had set these limits on humans?


http://media.giphy.com/media/Kyr8OnKRKmDbG/giphy.gif



who do you think corrected those theories? oh wait, scientists


I have a magazine (Track & Field News) where those who publish it are far far more sprint knowledgeable than any scientist that predicted a race ran by the greatest sprinters of all time with Owens being one of them would be won by Bullet Bob Hayes in 9.85 secoonds. And that was about 20 years ago.

[Avante]

robdiaz, avante - idiots who deny facts
snakeboy - some personal bias blinding him, unfortunately
mouse - #justmousethings

What facts? There are no facts ya fucking moron.

The "facts" concerning the" theory" of evolution.....hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[spurraider21]

I have a magazine (Track & Field News) where those who publish it are far far more sprint knowledgeable than any scientist that predicted a race ran by the greatest sprinters of all time with Owens being one of them would be won by Bullet Bob Hayes in 9.85 secoonds. And that was about 20 years ago.
so basically no. you can't prove this claim that there was a scientific consensus of how fast humans could possibly run

[Blake]

What facts? There are no facts ya fucking moron.

The "facts" concerning the" theory" of evolution.....hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Scientific theory isn't defined the same way as a general theory.

You're way out of your league here, squirt.

[SnakeBoy]

robdiaz, avante - idiots who deny facts
snakeboy - some personal bias blinding him, unfortunately
mouse - #justmousethings

Blinding me from what? I believe in evolution. I don't believe we have it all figured out yet, you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist who would disagree with that.

[z0sa]

Blinding me from what? I believe in evolution. I don't believe we have it all figured out yet, you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist who would disagree with that.

Ok then... I stand corrected.

[RandomGuy]

That's fine, like I said before whatever makes you happy. I just said I didn't believe that learning good science had anything to do with why you started the thread and you've proven that to be true.

Suit yourself. I think you have proven rather conclusively that the process you use to reach conclusions tends to be pretty flawed, and lead you to a lot of foolish conclusions, so I won't be losing much sleep over them.

[RandomGuy]

I was reading about the theory of evolution 30 years ago. And still don't buy it at all.

I've also been reading stuff like this just as long...

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Not really evidence, merely a lot of dishonest misrepresentations of evidence, and the theory of evolution. I skimmed it, but won't bother with a point by point.

What do you think is the best point from the link you posted? (or did you actually read it?)

[AussieFanKurt]

When people believe in creationism and use science as a way to dispel evolution.. well I just can't take the irony

[RandomGuy]

It's 1936 and Jesse Owens has just won the Olympic 100m in 10.3. He is the fastest man in the world (no not really that was the injured Eulace Peacock). Now if someone would have asked the scientific world what the limits of human beings were in the 100m do you really think they come up with 9.58? Of course not, they would have worked around 10.3 and probably came up with 9.9ish. No way they see a guy 6-5 with a 400/200m background running a 100m, that was unheard of in 1936.

Give it up people, we did not evolve from fish....ok, that's fucking stupid and only a moron would buy that bullshit.

How come fish aren't leaving the ocean today?


http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

Argument from incredulity.

Debunked:

Claim CA100:


It is inconceivable that (fill in the blank) could have originated naturally. Therefore, it must have been created.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html

Doesn't really speak to the evidence of evolution though, does it?

Perhaps you can explain why all the marsupials on the planet are in one place?

Ring species?

Bacterial flagella?

How does one explain these items without the theory of evolution? Perhaps you can explain it for me. I don't think you have a coherent alternative theory.

[RandomGuy]

So nobody knows anything about this but you, right? How come I don't believe that?

Lots of people know about evolution besides me.

That is why there are so many links to the basics on evolution, and why it is so easy to rebut your really bad arguments. I have to spend as much time debunking them as you spent copying and pasting them. The difference, of course, is I understand and read what I am posting about, and you don't even really read what you post.

[RandomGuy]

Everyone understands, it's not even as complex as the zone defense.

You have attempted to define what evolution is, and have failed to accurately do so.

That would imply that it is more complex than your flawed understanding of it.

Which is why I have posted some 101 links in the OP.

Did you read any of it?

[RandomGuy]

So I guess these fishy things just crawled up on shore knowing they'd find something they could eat and preceded to ........hmmmmmm? What happened next?

I;m with you, talk about some stupidity there it is.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kGvkXD-uDdk/TnF1COHF0GI/AAAAAAAAuAc/h3Zq06Oozxk/s1600/_DSC0024m6.jpg


http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/6/1/8


Generally, finding something to eat is generally secondary to the ability to escape predators, or reproduce in relative safety.


here are different kinds of air-breathing fishes. Aquatic air-breathing fishes remain in water and surface periodically to gulp air. This behaviour may be continuous in some species subjected to low oxygen concentrations and high water temperatures, or facultative in species subjected to occasional conditions unfavourable for aquatic respiration. In contrast, amphibious air-breathers emerge from the water to feed, rest, escape predators, find a mate and defend territories. Some species are active on land, such as the mudskippers that are the subject of the next section. Other species are inactive on land and become air-breathers when their aquatic habitat disappears during the tropical dry season. Some lungfishes are in this category and are confined in mud burrows until the rains return. They are without food and enter a hypometabolic state or even aestivate (see Figure 2).

The ability of a fish to briefly leave the water is a very powerful adaptation.

Not hard to imagine that a progressive series of minor adaptations in such populations would lead to variations that allow for more and more time spent out of water, given so positive a selective force.

[SnakeBoy]

Suit yourself. I think you have proven rather conclusively that the process you use to reach conclusions tends to be pretty flawed, and lead you to a lot of foolish conclusions, so I won't be losing much sleep over them.

What process did you use to reach the conclusion that this thread of yours would be any different from all of the other evolution threads?

Since your goal here is to provide answers, I do have a question for you. How long will it take for you to get frustrated and throw a temper tantrum like you have in other evolution threads?

[RandomGuy]

Yep, those that believe in some God being responsible for all this.


So this is simply wrong?


The "Tree of Life" is falling

New discoveries are bringing down the whole notion of a "tree of life", as passages from an article in the mainstream magazine New Scientist show:26 "The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened." "For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. 'For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,' says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach."
"But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. 'We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,' says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change." "The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes". "As more and more genes were sequenced, it became clear that the patterns of relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were routinely swapping genetic material with other species - often across huge taxonomic distances". " 'There's promiscuous exchange of genetic information across diverse groups,' says Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine." "As early as 1993, some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea the tree of life was more like a web. In 1999, Doolittle made the provocative claim that 'the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree'.13 'The tree of life is not something that exists in nature, it's a way that humans classify nature,' he says."


Why is it we are totally surrounded by that sort of thing today? So many not believing in Darwin's theory. How come everyone isn't accepting it as the way it really was? I don't think you really understasnd just how many out there aren't buying it at all and totally disagree with with you.

Indeed, there is a huge amount of evidence that early single-celled organisms exchanged a lot of genetic information. This, however, doesn't somehow "disprove" evolution.

The only thing it does is simply refine the concept of speciation.

Do you think that the number of people believing in something affects the underlying truth of an idea?

[Avante]

Indeed, there is a huge amount of evidence that early single-celled organisms exchanged a lot of genetic information. This, however, doesn't somehow "disprove" evolution.

The only thing it does is simply refine the concept of speciation.

Do you think that the number of people believing in something affects the underlying truth of an idea?

It took us how long to give black folks their freedom, women the right to vote? Remember when homosexuality was considered a mental illness? Look at how pot is now being threated? There's evolution.

More and more scientists are starting to question the theory of evolution, why is that?

[RandomGuy]

What process did you use to reach the conclusion that this thread of yours would be any different from all of the other evolution threads?

Since your goal here is to provide answers, I do have a question for you. How long will it take for you to get frustrated and throw a temper tantrum like you have in other evolution threads?

(shrugs)

The inherent assumption to your first question is flawed, the question is therefore meaningless.

As for if/when I lose my temper: I have no idea. It does happen.

Does my ability to control my temper have any impact on the evidence supporting the theory of evolution? or is using the phrase "temper tantrum" just allow you some emotionally comforting way of dismissing me?

http://suzie81.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/29zcyeh.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Do you think that the number of people believing in something affects the underlying truth of an idea?



It took us how long to give black folks their freedom, women the right to vote? Remember when homosexuality was considered a mental illness? Look at how pot is now being threated? There's evolution.

More and more scientists are starting to question the theory of evolution, why is that?

Doesn't really answer my question.

Yes or no, 2nd time:

Do you think that the number of people believing in something affects the underlying truth of an idea?

[Blake]

It took us how long to give black folks their freedom, women the right to vote? Remember when homosexuality was considered a mental illness? Look at how pot is now being threated? There's evolution.

More and more scientists are starting to question the theory of evolution, why is that?

You're equating blacks being able to vote with the theory of evolution.

wow. You are completely retarded.

[DarrinS]

Another evolution vs creation thread?

pass

[RandomGuy]

Avante claims to want answers, but never seems very interested in actual evidence.

Doesn't really jibe with someone who cares about reality, IMO.

[RandomGuy]

Shameless bump.

[mouse]

/thread

uidpJlNbKsQ

[mouse]

Shameless bump.

Why bump when you can just finally post a link to the fossils that prove we evolved from an ape?

[spurraider21]

/thread

uidpJlNbKsQ
you just posted this same flawed thing in the other thread :lol

[mouse]

you just posted this same flawed thing in the other thread :lol

And you had nothing add to that topic just like you have nothing to add to this topic.

[spurraider21]

And you had nothing add to that topic just like you have nothing to add to this topic.
i pointed out critical flaws. that is adding to the topic

[mouse]

i pointed out critical flaws. that is adding to the topic

Not really negative feedback is taking away not adding.

If you had a restaurant and all you got was negative feedback how will that increase profits?

[RandomGuy]

Why bump when you can just finally post a link to the fossils that prove we evolved from an ape?

http://humanorigins.si.edu/resources/intro-human-evolution

Easy enough.

http://humanevolutionofficial.weebly.com/uploads/1/9/8/8/19888289/4309534_orig.jpg

http://www.roiscience.com/evolution-vs-creationism-facts/Content/hominids.jpg

http://ideonexus.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/047.png

etc

etc

[RD2191]

Lol evolution

[RandomGuy]

Lol evolution

Did you bother reading the simple material in the OP?

[Blake]

Lol evolution

Lol rob

[z0sa]

Look up extrachromosal viral DNA in humans for irrefutable evidence we share a common ancestor with the chimpanzees and several if not many other species.

Long story short, over time viral infections enter into our evolutionary ancestors' chromoses far back on the time scale. These viruses replaced sections of our DNA with their own, thus passing their genetic material on through the ages with every new generation, forever afterwards. The chances of humans and chimpanzees having the exact same sections of chromosomal DNA replaced by viruses are so low as to imply impossibility - unless one invokes the theory of evolution, of course. Then such things become predictable, IE good science. And this type of extrachromosomal evidence exists throughout the animal kingdom, humans and chimpanzees just being one obvious example.

Alone, this concept of viral DNA being replicated through the ages between closely related species singlehandedly proves common descent.

[mouse]

Did you know the lug nuts of a Potomac will fit a Chevy?

It's becisse they share a common designer not because they Evolved from a Nissan

[spurraider21]

Did you know the lug nuts of a Potomac will fit a Chevy?

It's becisse they share a common designer not because they Evolved from a Nissan
so do humans have a creator?

[mouse]

so do humans have a creator?

Not sure and it doesn't really matter I let the Creationists and Evolutionists occupy thier time debating that topic.

What I do know is I'm not here because some fish with legs had sex with a duck.

[Blake]

Not sure and it doesn't really matter I let the Creationists and Evolutionists occupy thier time debating that topic.

What I do know is I'm not here because some fish with legs had sex with a duck.

So you throw out a car analogy, implying that since a Potomac has a complex design that it only makes sense that humans were designed.

But when someone takes your logic to the next level asking "ok, then who designed the guy that designed humans?"...... You run away.

Far far away.

[mouse]

So you throw out a car analogy, implying that since a Potomac has a complex design that it only makes sense that humans were designed.

But when someone takes your logic to the next level asking "ok, then who designed the guy that designed humans?"...... You run away.

Far far away.


You must have a thicker skull than Chump or very poor reading skills.

I have posted more than once AD supporters don't care about who's responsible for humans being on earth.

And the truth is it wouldn't even matter how I answer your question you will find some lame excuse to say I'm full of shit or ask to see my credentials from MIT

[spurraider21]

You must have a thicker skull than Chump or very poor reading skills.

I have posted more than once AD supporters don't care about who's responsible for humans being on earth.

And the truth is it wouldn't even matter how I answer your question you will find some lame excuse to say I'm full of shit or ask to see my credentials from MIT
how can you say humans/DNA must have been created but then refuse to claim there is a creator. its simple math

1) we require a creator
2) we exist
3) creator must exist

[Blake]

You must have a thicker skull than Chump or very poor reading skills.

I have posted more than once AD supporters don't care about who's responsible for humans being on earth.


Lol AD supporters. Who besides you?

you made the contention that complexity must mean design. You stop there because you're too lazy to open your mind and take it to the next logical level.

If there is some ultimate master designer, where did he come from?

[mouse]

how can you say humans/DNA must have been created but then refuse to claim there is a creator. its simple math

1) we require a creator
2) we exist
3) creator must exist


When did I mention creation?

Dude put the meth pipe down take a nap and later read my comments again I don't support creation it's not my fault your little brain can't process that.

[spurraider21]

When did I mention creation?
here

Did you know the lug nuts of a Potomac will fit a Chevy?

It's becisse they share a common designer not because they Evolved from a Nissan

[mouse]

Lol AD supporters. Who besides you?



Your that misguided not to know there are poeple who don't support the bible and don't support evolution either?

Just because you can't find something on google you assume it doesn't exist?



you made the contention that complexity must mean design. You stop there because you're too lazy to open your mind and take it to the next logical level.

Not true if I was lazy I wouldn't reply to these topics and host videos on photobucket.

The truth is there doesn't seem to be anyone in this forum with the mental capabilty to engage in any intelligent discussion.


If there is some ultimate master designer,


According to you.



where did he come from?

Talk about lazy thinking.

Have you ever considered there could be life outdide this galaxy?

[mouse]

here

I don't see me mentioning creation put the pipe down

[spurraider21]

I don't see me mentioning creation put the pipe down
you imply it. if we along with our DNA are "designed" and now we are here, that is the logical implication

[mouse]

you imply it. if we along with our DNA are "designed" and now we are here, that is the logical implication



I get it Avante or mysel post you said something and can't prove it we are called liars.

You do the same and it's not lying
You get a pass?

You may consider becoming a politician.

[spurraider21]

I get it Avante or mysel post you said something and can't prove it we are called liars.

You do the same and it's not lying
You get a pass?

You may consider becoming a politician.
i didnt call you a liar. i'm making sure you understood your own wording. you implied the existence of a creator.

[Blake]

I don't see me mentioning creation put the pipe down

:cry alternative design :cry = creation.

[Blake]

Talk about lazy thinking.

Have you ever considered there could be life outdide this galaxy?

Sure. I'm not sure it's as evolved as we are though.

Could still be in the primordial ooze stage...

[spurraider21]

so mouse thinks we are designed but isn't saying there is a designer. ok.

[Blake]

so mouse thinks we are designed but isn't saying there is a designer. ok.

:cry who needs kollege :cry

[mouse]

so mouse thinks we are designed but isn't saying there is a designer. ok.


If you look up to the sky and a cloud looks like Elvis are you saying there had to be a designer? Can't a cloud, and oil stain, or a piece of toast just happen to look like Jesus?

I notice when someone claims they have the face of Jesus on a tortilla you Darwin lovers are quick to point out how it was just chance, after all if you drop enough oil or cook enough tortillas your bound to get the face of John Lennon , Jesus, and the RatCoon.


You claim that Random shit happens when a religious group wants to capitalize on a Virgin Mary sighting or until someone mentions a design now you ask for a Designer?



on a side note: spurraider21 if you don't have anything to add to this discussion can you at least back off on your "I'm the new Xmas1997" shtick?

If not then why not just bring Xmas1997 back?

At least that vato was entertaining.


80DtQD5BQ_A

[tlongII]

If you look up to the sky and a cloud looks like Elvis are you saying there had to be a designer? Can't a cloud, and oil stain, or a piece of toast just happen to look like Jesus?

I notice when someone claims they have the face of Jesus on a tortilla you Darwin lovers are quick to point out how it was just chance, after all if you drop enough oil or cook enough tortillas your bound to get the face of John Lennon , Jesus, and the RatCoon.


You claim that Random shit happens when a religious group wants to capitalize on a Virgin Mary sighting or until someone mentions a design now you ask for a Designer?



on a side note: spurraider21 if you don't have anything to add to this discussion can you at least back off on your "I'm the new Xmas1997" shtick?

If not then why not just bring Xmas1997 back?

At least that vato was entertaining.


80DtQD5BQ_A

What? Talking about nothing to add...

[mouse]

so mouse thinks we are designed but isn't saying there is a designer. ok.

And that seems to bother you....

[mouse]

What? Talking about nothing to add...

Hey it's our residential Darwin groupie. Yo tlongII you have any more cool links of eyeless fossils of sperms found by another university looking for more Government funding?

[spurraider21]

And that seems to bother you....
it makes no sense.

IF we accept your premise that humans must be "designed"... then the fact that we exists must mean that there is a designer.

[mouse]

it makes no sense.

IF we accept your premise that humans must be "designed"... then the fact that we exists must mean that there is a designer.

And your point?

[spurraider21]

And your point?
my point is that you don't follow simple logic. your premise that we must have been "designed" requires a designer. yet you routinely avoid saying that there is a designer

[mouse]

my point is that you don't follow simple logic. your premise that we must have been "designed" requires a designer. yet you routinely avoid saying that there is a designer

Are you saying I don't have the right to do so?

[spurraider21]

Are you saying I don't have the right to do so?
i didn't say that.

but as long as you know you are being illogical, you'll understand why you aren't being taken seriously

[mouse]

i didn't say that.

but as long as you know you are being illogical, you'll understand why you aren't being taken seriously

So I need to say what you want me to say in order to be taken seriously.?

[spurraider21]

So I need to say what you want me to say in order to be taken seriously.?
you need to be logical for me to take you seriously

if you are going to say humans were designed, but then you aren't going to say there is a designer... then you aren't being logical

[Blake]

Are you saying I don't have the right to do so?

Sure, you have the right to disregard the dictionary definition of design that us English speakers use.

But it's dumb.

[tlongII]

And your point?

Actually it's your point. But if you comb your hair right and wear a hat no one will notice.

[mouse]

Actually it's your point. But if you comb your hair right and wear a hat no one will notice.

Explains why you never take your hat off.
Thanks for the heads up.

[ezau]

And that seems to bother you....

Who is the designer? How did he/she/it do it? If you've got no evidence, then it's not Science.

[spurraider21]

i think he's a nutjob. he's a "freelance researcher" with zero credentials to make any of his claims. this is why his work is considered pseudoscience. he's also a religious nut which surely clouds his judgment

[boutons_deux]

World’s Oldest Engraving Upends Theory of Homo sapiensUniqueness
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/files/2014/12/Trinil-engraved-shell-detail-212x300.jpg
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2014/12/03/worlds-oldest-engraving-upends-theory-of-homo-sapiens-uniqueness/

[RandomGuy]

If you look up to the sky and a cloud looks like Elvis are you saying there had to be a designer? Can't a cloud, and oil stain, or a piece of toast just happen to look like Jesus?

I notice when someone claims they have the face of Jesus on a tortilla you Darwin lovers are quick to point out how it was just chance, after all if you drop enough oil or cook enough tortillas your bound to get the face of John Lennon , Jesus, and the RatCoon.


You claim that Random shit happens when a religious group wants to capitalize on a Virgin Mary sighting or until someone mentions a design now you ask for a Designer?



on a side note: spurraider21 if you don't have anything to add to this discussion can you at least back off on your "I'm the new Xmas1997" shtick?

If not then why not just bring Xmas1997 back?

At least that vato was entertaining.


80DtQD5BQ_A

Did someone say random?

[RandomGuy]

What does everybody think of this info?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASK2kKUAgq0
FORBIDDEN ARCHEOLOGY Michael Cremo in Toronto (Conspiracy Culture)


Maybe man evolved a lot sooner than they tell us, or maybe some other scenario is what happened. I'm not taking a firm stand on this one. Let me say that I'm an agnostic.

Let me say you are insane.

[RandomGuy]

Did you know the lug nuts of a Potomac will fit a Chevy?

It's becisse they share a common designer not because they Evolved from a Nissan

Gets to the crux of it, donnit?

You only know what "designed" is by comparing it to something that isn't designed.

What would life that wasn't designed look like?

we have a theory of origin of species, and the only thing you have to really accept is that offspring share the genes of the parent. It really is just that simple.

[mouse]

Gets to the crux of it, donnit?

You only know what "designed" is by comparing it to something that isn't designed.

What would life that wasn't designed look like?

we have a theory of origin of species, and the only thing you have to really accept is that offspring share the genes of the parent. It really is just that simple.

If what you say is true then we should have millions of transitional fossils after all it took "Billions" of years to go from soup to Man where are the fossils?

And how do you get a Universe from nothing?

You don't have to support Creation just because you realized Darwin was full of shit.

your smarter thank that.


You ever see a peacock up close, how do you get all those colors and patterns from random DNA?


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GPXUcFHRmFw/UibEAP1L-3I/AAAAAAAAJRI/8I89ld3ZrL4/s1600/wallpapers-peacock.jpg

name the fish that became a Bear.

how do you get a starfish from a random explosion?

Until you can answer these questions truthfully you will never understand Design it has nothing to do with a God.


open your eyes...
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/images/eyechmlian.jpg

[spurraider21]

cmon mouse you cant sit on both sides of the fence

[RandomGuy]

If what you say is true then we should have millions of transitional fossils after all it took "Billions" of years to go from soup to Man where are the fossils?

And how do you get a Universe from nothing?

You don't have to support Creation just because you realized Darwin was full of shit.

your smarter thank that.


You ever see a peacock up close, how do you get all those colors and patterns from random DNA?


name the fish that became a Bear.

how do you get a starfish from a random explosion?

Until you can answer these questions truthfully you will never understand Design it has nothing to do with a God.


open your eyes...


Transitional fossils are all there. Peacocks colors are not from "random" DNA.

Stop asking me for evidence you won't look at, and don't care to learn about. It's insulting.

[RandomGuy]

That may turn out to be true. I'm not in a position to be able to verify anything. Is what you said mere intuition, or are you in a position to verify it? If you are, tell us how.

Listen to what this scientist says at the 00:16 time mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA
Origins of Man Bonus Evidence II Part 2


I wouldn't just rule out what she says.
https://www.google.es/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Dr.+Virginia+Steen-Mcintyre+Huey%C3%A1tlaco+mexico&spell=1

Your links are a proven waste of time, especially since you so actively ignore everyone elses.

[spurraider21]

:lol

This video by UFOvideo.com

[RandomGuy]

Please explain how it's proven.

You are in-fucking-sane.

No one buys your "faked moon landing theory". No one. There is a reasonf for that. You have no credibility. none. zero. zilch. nada.

The fact that you weigh in on a thread like this though, is funny.

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol Don Quixote

[mouse]

Don't let these uneducated salad tossers try and "Censor" you Cosmored.

This is still America were your right to say something is respected.

Or until Google,YouTube,or a Web master steps in.



http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_tJ-ryHrTrA/0.jpg





Sent from my iPhone


http://www.5sigcmd.army.mil/units/44TH/images/icons/DUI.png

[spurraider21]

:lmao Photo-Creation Magazine

[mouse]

:lmao Photo-Creation Magazine

Doesn't mean the photo is bogus I got it off Google images but your immature lame ass is worried about who you can label a creationist you end up looking desperate and foolish which further proves there is no more Evolution debate your side lost when DNA was discovered.

And the Original topic started knew that when he created the topic here we are 6 pages and your uneducated self hasn't responded with anything solid.

The sad part is I actually took you serious and wasted valuable time replying to you.

[spurraider21]

remember that time you brought up snail-to-human evolution and posted a picture that showed humans didnt come from snails :lol

[RandomGuy]

It usually happens when you spend months on the www and can't find shit that proves humans Evolved from warm pools of liquid billions of years ago.

Its in the OP, not that you care.

How do you explain the fact that overall taxonomy and phylogeny match so perfectly with evidence predicted by evolutionary theory, vis a vis modern genetic evidence?

[RandomGuy]

my point is that you don't follow simple logic. your premise that we must have been "designed" requires a designer. yet you routinely avoid saying that there is a designer


Are you saying I don't have the right to do so?

You have the right to do so.

Just as you have the right to argue for the existence of 4 corned triangles, or square circles.

The internet is full of stupid non-sequiturs and people who are unable to form coherent thoughts.

Think away. :toast

[Blake]

Doesn't mean the photo is bogus I got it off Google images but your immature lame ass is worried about who you can label a creationist you end up looking desperate and foolish which further proves there is no more Evolution debate your side lost when DNA was discovered.

And the Original topic started knew that when he created the topic here we are 6 pages and your uneducated self hasn't responded with anything solid.

The sad part is I actually took you serious and wasted valuable time replying to you.

Lol valuable time

[mouse]

How do you explain the fact that overall taxonomy and phylogeny match so perfectly with evidence predicted by evolutionary theory, vis a vis modern genetic evidence?


You ask a serious question worth answering and only two posts later you start to ridicule me and slip back into immature mode.

[RandomGuy]

You ask a serious question worth answering and only two posts later you start to ridicule me and slip back into immature mode.

Feel free to answer my serious question in your own words.

Copy pasta will merely get more immaturity on my part.

[RandomGuy]

Lines of evidence: The science of evolution

At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.

Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.

The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time. In this section, we will explore the lines of evidence that are used to reconstruct this story.

These lines of evidence include:
Fossil evidence
Homologies
Distribution in time and space
Evidence by example

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01


Will start with fossil evidence:
https://timpanogos.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/padians-chart-evolution-of-tetrapods.jpg

[mouse]

New Research Debunks Tetrapod Walk Theory

A team of British-based scientists have produced a three-dimensional construction of the extinct, 360-million-year-old Ichthyostega, which they say debunks long held theories about how the creature moved on land. School children have long been taugh
Produced by Reuters, powered by NewsLook


http://archive.greatfallstribune.com/VideoNetwork/1662580529001/New-Research-Debunks-Tetrapod-Walk-Theory

[RandomGuy]

New Research Debunks Tetrapod Walk Theory

A team of British-based scientists have produced a three-dimensional construction of the extinct, 360-million-year-old Ichthyostega, which they say debunks long held theories about how the creature moved on land. School children have long been taugh
Produced by Reuters, powered by NewsLook


http://archive.greatfallstribune.com/VideoNetwork/1662580529001/New-Research-Debunks-Tetrapod-Walk-Theory

Cool. New evidence regarding this transitional species has refined what we knew, and corrected a misconception about one of the more interesting fossil species.

This is actually a very good example of the self-correcting, and cumulative nature of scientific empirical methods.

Thanks.





Let me guess, you posted it, because it had the word "debunked" and "theory" in it. Unfortunately, the "theory" debunked was the theory that a certain species had limbs that were stronger than the new evidence strongly suggests they were.

Unfortunately for the short-attention span crowd, this doesn't say what you think it does.

Let me guess, you were going to disprove evolution, but you got....

d8AuMOGx_KY

[boutons_deux]

The Origin of Life And The Hidden Role of Quantum Criticality

Quantum criticality must have played a crucial role in the origin of life say researchers who have found its hidden signature in a wide range of important biomolecules

One of the great puzzles of biology is how the molecular machinery of life is so finely coordinated. Even the simplest cells are complex three dimensional biochemical factories in which a dazzling array of machines fill the shop floor.

These machines pump, push, copy, and compute in a dance of extraordinarily detailed complexity. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how the ordinary processes of conduction and electron transport allow this complexity to emerge given the losses that inevitably arise, even in much simpler circuits.

Today, Stuart Kauffmann at the University of Calgary in Canada and a few pals provide some extraordinary new insight into how all this might happen. These show that most biomolecules are quantum critical conductors; their electronic properties are precisely tuned to the transition point between a metal and an insulator.

In other words, biomolecules belong to an entirely new class of conductor that is not bound by the ordinary rules of electron transport, a discovery that has profound implications for our understanding of the nature of life and its origin.

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552

[mouse]

Let me guess, you were going to disprove evolution, but you got....


Why would I try do disprove something that has never been proven in the first place?
I like how this man in the video talks abut the 300 scientists that signed a document saying Darwin theories are not legit reminds me of TlongII and others here at the Club who are always asking me what Scientists supports your theories it doesn't matter if there are 300 scientists your going to want 3,000

P2M0XQnqfNY

[Blake]

Why would I try do disprove something that has never been proven in the first place?
I like how this man in the video talks abut the 300 scientists that signed a document saying Darwin theories are not legit reminds me of TlongII and others here at the Club who are always asking me what Scientists supports your theories it doesn't matter if there are 300 scientists your going to want 3,000

P2M0XQnqfNY

mouse's war on Darwin

[mouse]

mouse's war on Darwin


Actually its a war on lies and stupidity.

ZfvXkSowV6I

[mouse]

The Origin of Life And The Hidden Role of Quantum Criticality

Quantum criticality must have played a crucial role in the origin of life say researchers who have found its hidden signature in a wide range of important biomolecules

One of the great puzzles of biology is how the molecular machinery of life is so finely coordinated. Even the simplest cells are complex three dimensional biochemical factories in which a dazzling array of machines fill the shop floor.

These machines pump, push, copy, and compute in a dance of extraordinarily detailed complexity. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how the ordinary processes of conduction and electron transport allow this complexity to emerge given the losses that inevitably arise, even in much simpler circuits.

Today, Stuart Kauffmann at the University of Calgary in Canada and a few pals provide some extraordinary new insight into how all this might happen. These show that most biomolecules are quantum critical conductors; their electronic properties are precisely tuned to the transition point between a metal and an insulator.

In other words, biomolecules belong to an entirely new class of conductor that is not bound by the ordinary rules of electron transport, a discovery that has profound implications for our understanding of the nature of life and its origin.

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552





Interesting point of view on a topic that seems to never advance forward due to personal attacks on a persons religious beliefs.

so where do you stand on this issue.

w9pj3fiZGNE

[Blake]

Interesting point of view on a topic that seems to never advance forward due to personal attacks on a persons religious beliefs.

so where do you stand on this issue.

w9pj3fiZGNE

Give your summary of that issue

[mouse]

Give your summary of that issue


I haven't researched it enough to say online my opinion on the subject so your ridiculing of me will just have to wait a few days.

[Blake]

I haven't researched it enough to say online my opinion on the subject so your ridiculing of me will just have to wait a few days.

Then why'd you post it

[RandomGuy]

Then why'd you post it [mouse]?

d8AuMOGx_KY


Just a guess. :lol

[phyzik]

Without even reading the thread, there is a mountain of evidence in favor of evolution vs any other "theory" in all of science, several times over any theological belief.

You can WISH (pray) as hard as you want for something to be true, it still doesn't make it truth in the eyes of hard facts.

[RandomGuy]

The real thing is nobody can "prove" anything. For everyone who believes in evolution, 10 don't! I am talking about the fish to man scenario.

So you really think you are the one who really has the answer? Everyone is wrong and you are right...right? So all we are doing is going around in circles. Those few atheists don't get it and all those believers can't prove anything,




(shrugs)

What I can do, and have done, is show you are pretty conclusively wrong.

You prove to be pretty consistently wrong about this topic, and laughably so.

https://thedogsnobs.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/mjaxnc0xzdu1zjvhmtrknmu5mdlj_52e83fd048990.png

I can see how being shown to be a moron, might conflict with your self-image as smart enough to tie your own shoes, which I sort of doubt. I would imagine a lot of sketchers in your wardrobe.



You haven't done anything but look like a total joke. The holes in the theory of evolution are a mile wide and all over the place. Only an idiot liKe you would ignore that.

Do you work at being stupid?

Meh, not falling for it, sorry.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Some things simply can't happen by chance. You could take a handfiul of rocks and everyday for one bilion years toss them and they will never end up in a perfect circle, never!

We are living on a planet perfectly set up for us to thrive. This could only come about by some Designer, Designers. And it's so damn obvious it's ridiculous.

The Sun is the perfect distance, we rotate at the perfect speed, we have the perfect seasons, then we have DNA which MUST need a Designer.

Only fools don't get it.

Dummy...but science says....

Did science see the cell phone in 1478?

Ish. Bad reasoning from start to finish.

Assertions without evidence and a basic argument from incredulity fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

We have discovered thousands and thousands of planets orbiting other stars. Planets are therefore common in our galaxy, and we have no reason to think this isn't the case in all of the billions of galaxies we can see.

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the formation of planets is a naturalistic phenomenon.


Arguments from incredulity take the form:

1) P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
or
2) I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.


Avante here actually does both forms:


[That we are the result of random natural processes] simply can't happen by chance, [therefore the argument that we are the result of random natural processes is false]
P= We are the result of random natural processes


[I cannot imagine how anything could happen without a designer "we... must have a Designer"], [so therefore, we have a Designer]
P=We have a Designer

Wishful, flawed thinking and provably so.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

[RandomGuy]

Seems relevant to bump.

[RandomGuy]

Thinking about it, I don't believe you. If learning science was really your goal, you would be asking questions rather than trying to give everyone else the answers.

What questions should I be asking? How do you know I am not asking questions?

[pgardn]

Seems relevant to bump.

It is, but they don't want to get it.

In childhood, the fat guy down the chimney, Mr. Easter Bunny, The Tooth fairy ,were somewhat super heroes and a comfort. As adults some choose to want the truth.
But some don't.

No amount of them asking questions and science attempting to give the current view on the subject is gonna do it. But what is cool is others do lurk and read. And they might get into one of the most fascinating subjects in science. An educated public is a preferred in a democracy.

Some are going to get culled out and left behind as the knowledge of our world changes.

[RandomGuy]

It is, but they don't want to get it.

In childhood, the fat guy down the chimney, Mr. Easter Bunny, The Tooth fairy ,were somewhat super heroes and a comfort. As adults some choose to want the truth.
But some don't.

No amount of them asking questions and science attempting to give the current view on the subject is gonna do it. But what is cool is others do lurk and read. And they might get into one of the most fascinating subjects in science. An educated public is a preferred in a democracy.

Some are going to get culled out and left behind as the knowledge of our world changes.

RqGt0YV1AMQ

[RandomGuy]

jL-h5GA8tKc

They are out there....


ca4-6VKgXI8

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/02/14/277058739/1-in-4-americans-think-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says

[facepalm]

[mouse]

They are out there....



They are in here.....

pcfFPzcGbD4

[spurraider21]

They are in here.....

pcfFPzcGbD4
:lmao this guy's my favorite


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

[RandomGuy]

LOL banana boy...

[mouse]

:lmao this guy's my favorite


And yet your still not able to debunk it.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/th_Alternative-Design-003.mp4 (http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/Alternative-Design-003.mp4)

[RD2191]

They are in here.....

pcfFPzcGbD4
a pig more human than a fetus. lol evolutionist are disgusting people.

[Blake]

a pig more human than a fetus. lol evolutionist are disgusting people.

lol disgusted by science

[batman2883]

shes blinded me with science!!

[RD2191]

lol disgusted by science
no, not science, idiot evolutionist who think a pigs life is the same as a human fetus.

[batman2883]

now i want bacon

[RD2191]

now i want bacon
:lol

[Blake]

They are in here.....

pcfFPzcGbD4

Rofl those guys

[spurraider21]

And yet your still not able to debunk it.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/th_Alternative-Design-003.mp4 (http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/Alternative-Design-003.mp4)
this is literally the 20th time you've posted this video since we've started having this discussion :lol... i dont need to keep explaining why its horseshit. add some new content to your photobucket

[RandomGuy]

And yet your still not able to debunk it.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/th_Alternative-Design-003.mp4 (http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/Alternative-Design-003.mp4)

What needs debunking? You will have to post a coherent thought, if you want something addressed, mouse.

[RandomGuy]

no, not science, idiot evolutionist who think a pigs life is the same as a human fetus.

That isn't really coherent either.

Is there something you would like explained?

OR

Perhaps you think that offspring don't really inherit traits from their parents?

[RandomGuy]

a pig more human than a fetus. lol evolutionist are disgusting people.

What I find really disgusting is a being that orders his followers to hack children to death.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ff/95/70/ff957096386cc204c74dd3c7b43c3bea.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Let's start with a few bits of data supporting the theory of evolution.

One important thing for evolution to take place is simply time. The initial steps from unicellular prokaryotes to eukaryotes took a while. If evolution is to be proven, you first have to have sufficient time for the race to begin.

First up: geology.
Lithologic Stratigraphy

The Earth’s crust has layers. Some of these layers are from the decomposition of sediment, others come from chemical precipitation, others from decaying organic matter, and others from volcanic lava. The reason we can see the layers is because they were formed in different ways.
http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/


Lithostratigraphy is a sub-discipline of stratigraphy, the geological science associated with the study of strata or rock layers. Major focuses include geochronology, comparative geology, and petrology. In general a stratum will be primarily igneous or sedimentary relating to how the rock was formed.

Sedimentary layers are laid down by deposition of sediment associated with weathering processes, decaying organic matters (biogenic) or through chemical precipitation. These layers are distinguishable as having many fossils and are important for the study of biostratigraphy. Igneous layers are either plutonic or volcanic in character depending upon the cooling rate of the rock. These layers are generally devoid of fossils and represent intrusions and volcanic activity that occurred over the geologic history of the area.

There are a number of principles that are used to explain the appearance of stratum. When an igneous rock cuts across a formation of sedimentary rock, then we can say that the igneous intrusion is younger than the sedimentary rock. The principle of superposition states that a sedimentary rock layer in a tectonically undisturbed stratum is younger than the one beneath and older than the one above it. The principle of original horizontality states that the deposition of sediments occurs as essentially horizontal beds.

Fancy way of saying that dirt has layers. Some of which are the result of different processes.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2010/09/strata1.jpg

Step from this to figuring out how long it took for these various layers to form.

Here we rely on first on the law of superposition. Oldest layers will be deeper than newer layers.

To begin to accept evolution as true, you need to have evidence of this. Fairly easy. Just dig a lot, and see what turns up.

You start with easy things, such as human settlements of long-lived cities. London is a good example, Rome another.

Seems common sense enough, but I can provide a few scientific papers if anybody wants, but the basics were laid down as early as the 1600's for modern consideration of fossils by a gentleman who simply asked how a solid such as a fossil, could end up inside another solid, such as a layer of rock.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/steno.html

[pgardn]

Let's start with a few bits of data supporting the theory of evolution.

One important thing for evolution to take place is simply time. The initial steps from unicellular prokaryotes to eukaryotes took a while. If evolution is to be proven, you first have to have sufficient time for the race to begin.

First up: geology.
Lithologic Stratigraphy

http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/



Fancy way of saying that dirt has layers. Some of which are the result of different processes.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2010/09/strata1.jpg

Step from this to figuring out how long it took for these various layers to form.

Here we rely on first on the law of superposition. Oldest layers will be deeper than newer layers.

To begin to accept evolution as true, you need to have evidence of this. Fairly easy. Just dig a lot, and see what turns up.

You start with easy things, such as human settlements of long-lived cities. London is a good example, Rome another.

Seems common sense enough, but I can provide a few scientific papers if anybody wants, but the basics were laid down as early as the 1600's for modern consideration of fossils by a gentleman who simply asked how a solid such as a fossil, could end up inside another solid, such as a layer of rock.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/steno.html

A noble attempt sir.

"Do not try to reason a man out of something he did not reason himself into."

-Jonathan Swift

These guys don't want the truth as it now stands.
But it might help others who lurk. So, good effort.

[RandomGuy]

A noble attempt sir.

"Do not try to reason a man out of something he did not reason himself into."

-Jonathan Swift

These guys don't want the truth as it now stands.
But it might help others who lurk. So, good effort.

Well, I have to read and understand it as well. I might not change some people's minds, but along the way I will learn more than I knew before I started. Feels good to see at least one serious attempt at an honest dialogue, even if it is unreciprocated.

[RandomGuy]

For all the supposed evidence for transitional fossils, that terribly made 2 minute video with cheesy music is the best you guys can do ? Seriously ?

Well, let's first determine what a "transitional fossil" is. Defining terms is an important thing in science, and any attempt to understand any topic.

Easy enough to start with wikipedia:

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.

Basically, for evolution to be true, one should be able to show, generally, how groups of animals changed over time.

This is generally done by using the above noted Law of Superposition.

Evolution, as a workable theory, predicts that if you have a fossil of an animal in any given layer or era, you should be able to dig down to previous layers, and locate the ancestors for that species grouping.

Archaeopteryx being one of the most commonly presented examples. We have modern birds, that we had always suspected came from dinosaurs. Digging down we find a dinosaur with bird-like traits, below any examples of the first birds.

Whales are another good example of how evolution predicts things that we eventually found. Whales, dolphins, and porpoises, are air breathing mammals, relatively recently emerged.

For evolution to be true, we would expect that these animals would have had to come from animals that lived on land. Further, we would know approximately *when* these animals would have to have existed, simply by observing the oldest whale fossils we could find and theorizing that their ancestors came before.

After a lot of research, we finally discovered the first candidates in the early 80's, and in the mid 90's enough other specimens were found for a reasonable consensus about where whales probably came from to emerge:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evograms/paki_ambulo.png

Further reading could be had here:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

[RandomGuy]

Here I will pause, and note a common logical flaw in many peoples reasoning;

Moving the goalposts.

Logical fallacy[edit]

Moving the goalposts, similar to "shifting sands" and also known as raising the bar, is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.[3] The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the end result is changed, too.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Or if you prefer, a better presented form of this flawed argument here:

M
OVING THE GOALPOSTS
(also known as: gravity game, raising the bar, argument by demanding impossible perfection [form of])

Description: Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied refusing to conceded or accept the opponent’s argument.

Logical Form:

Issue A has been raised, and adequately answered.
Issue B is then raised, and adequately answered.
.....
Issue Z is then raised, and adequately answered.
(despite all issues adequately answered, the opponent refuses to conceded or accept the argument.
Example #1:

Ken: There has to be an objective morality because otherwise terms like “right” and “wrong” would be meaningless, since they have no foundation for comparison.
Rob: The terms “right” and “wrong” are based on cultural norms, which do have a subjective foundation -- one that changes as the moral sphere of the culture changes. The term “heavy” does not have an objective standard, yet we have no problem using that term in a meaningful way. In fact, very few relational terms have any kind of objective foundation.
Ken: But without an objective morality, we would all be lost morally as a race.
Rob: Many would say that we are.
Ken: But how can you say that torturing children for fun is morally acceptable in any situation?
Rob: Personally, I wouldn’t, but you are implying that anything that is not objective must necessarily be seen in all possible ways. A feather may not be seen as “heavy” to anyone, but that doesn’t mean its “lightness” is still not relative to other objects.
Ken: But God is the standard of objective morality. Prove that wrong!
Rob: That I cannot do.
Explanation: Ken starts with a statement explaining why he thinks there has to be an objective morality -- a statement based on a reasonable argument that can be pursued with reason and logic. Rob adequately answers that objection, as indicated by Ken’s move away from that objection to a new objection. This pattern continues until we arrive at an impossible request. Despite all the objections being adequately answered, at no time does Ken concede any points or abandon the argument.

Example #2: Perhaps the most classic example of this fallacy is the argument for the existence of God. Due to understanding of nature through science, many of the arguments that used to be used for God (or gods) were abandoned, only to be replaced with new ones, usually involving questions to which science has not definitively answered yet. The move from creationism to intelligent design is a prime example. Currently the origin of life is a popular argument for God (although a classic argument from ignorance), and an area where we very well may have a scientific answer in the next decade, at which time, the “origin of life” argument will fade away and be replaced by another, thus moving the figurative goalposts farther back as our understanding of the natural world increases.

The common application of this flawed line of reasoning is to insist on the impossible proof that every single transitional form be presented before evolution is "proved".

This is neither feasible, nor required to accept something as true.

Take this series of numbers for example:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, (X), 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, ...

We can deduce what "X" is, even if we don't know with an absolute certainty what comes after 14 in the series, simply by forming a hypothesis that the rule governing the set is "add one to the number on the left".

[RandomGuy]

There is no end to this....


So – the big questions are: does variety show that life-forms are changing from one kind into another? Or does variety have a limit?

There are only two ways to find out!



First, do we see Evolution happening today or do we see that life-forms have limits in their variety?
Second, if Evolution is true, the fossil record of the past should show millions of examples of transitional fossils.

On the other hand, if Evolution is not true, the fossil record should show that life-forms in the past had limits to their variety also.

This means a REAL transitional form would not be a “variety”. Instead, these life-forms should show a major structure that is clearly changing.

In other words – if rodents became bats we should see some strange rodent with super long fingers. Why? Because bats have fingers longer than their bodies that they use as wings.

The truth is the only possible transitional fossils Evolutionists bring up are not convincing – even to other Evolutionists. There are some interesting mosaic creatures like the platypus and the walrus in the world. But the platypus and the walrus are complete within their own kind. They are not transitional forms. If Creation is what really happened in the past, this is what we would expect to find in the fossil record. (3)

http://origin.arstechnica.com/journals/science.media/ancientBat.jpg


When people think of mammals, bats are probably not the first animals to come to mind, yet they account for roughly a fifth of current mammal species. They simply have so many specialized features—large ears and echolocation, radically extended forelimb bones, skin flaps connecting their limbs—that they seem quite removed from what we view as a typical mammal. A new fossil find from Wyoming, described in this week's edition of Nature, sheds light on the origin of many of these features.

As you can see at right, the fossil is astonishingly well preserved. It comes from deposits that date to about 52.5 million years ago, a time when many mammalian groups were expanding, possibly in response to the environmental changes associated with the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. The species has been named Onychonycteris finneyi, meaning "clawed bat" and honoring its discoverer, Bonnie Finney.

The clawed bat part refers to one of the many intermediate features that make Onychonycteris the most primitive bat species ever described. In all current and prior fossil species of bats, most of the digits in the wing lack the claws typical of mammalian digits. That's not the case here: all Onychonycteris digits end in claws. The hind limbs are also unusually long, as is the tail, but the limb contains a feature that suggests the presence of a skin flap between the hind limbs and the body.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2008/02/earliest-bat-fossil-reveals-transition-to-flight/

Asked for, and given.

The creationist response: move the goal posts. "but you can't find...."

Every single time a predicted transitional form is found that fills in yet another gap, this is what happens.

Dig into it.

Transitional forms predicted by evolution have been, and continue to be found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_transitional_fossils

Modern taxonomy and phylogeny, fully support evolution, and provide clues and predictions of all manner of transitional forms.

One of the strongest ways in which the evidence for evolution becomes overwhelming is when you find a theory's predictions being borne out in multiple lines of evidence.

If one wants to read up on this aspect of how the study of genetics supports the predictions of evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Not only does it tell you why something is true, it shows you how to determine for yourself, independently of what any scientist tells you.

[RandomGuy]

millions of years lol

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html


he oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point.

Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.

If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, then the data points will always fall on a single line. And from the slope of the line we can compute the amount of time which has passed since the pool of matter became separated into individual objects. See the Isochron Dating FAQ or Faure (1986, chapter 18) for technical detail.

.. the test for these assumptions is the plot of the data itself. The actual underlying assumption is that, if those requirements have not been met, there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line.

The resulting plot has data points for each of five meteorites that contain varying levels of uranium, a single data point for all meteorites that do not, and one (solid circle) data point for modern terrestrial sediments. It looks like this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth/pb-iso.gif



Easy enough to do.

Learn about radioactive half-lifes, and gather data regarding rocks and their compositions.

The only assumption required is that the laws of physics haven't changed. Generally something easy to show.

[boutons_deux]

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfeatures/1600_640/images/live/p0/2r/79/p02r7937.jpg


A chicken embryo with a dinosaur-like snout instead of a beak has been developed by scientists

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150512-bird-grows-face-of-dinosaur

[RandomGuy]

Regarding http://catalog.utsa.edu/undergraduate/coursedescriptions/ant/

Yes there are fossil records, but still, too many gaps and missing links. Not convinced.

See above. Ditto for the age of the earth.

[pgardn]

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfeatures/1600_640/images/live/p0/2r/79/p02r7937.jpg


A chicken embryo with a dinosaur-like snout instead of a beak has been developed by scientists

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150512-bird-grows-face-of-dinosaur



Developed?

Some chickens are born with teeth without any manipulation.
They still retain a "teeth" gene even though it is rarely turned on.
This is where Gould got the name for one of his books of essays, Hens Teeth and Horses Toes"
Some horses are born with two toed hooves like the fossil little guys we find.


To me this stuff is so cool and very revealing.

[pgardn]

See above. Ditto for the age of the earth.

So the poster you quoted believes that because there are gaps everything is specially created?

See, I don't get how people think species arise or change if they don't choose evolution because if they don't, they must fall back on created specially. And besides the fact that this is a magic explaination, we have so much evidence to suggest the unity and diversity of life it's just crazy to fall back on "poof there it is"

That just not suitable for subjects that have so much evidence.

Occasionally I have had things fall off a shelf in my house. So the obvious explanation is a ghost pushed instead of its center of gravity slowly shifted as its mass was redistributed slowly? Hell, I have put bean bags on the shelf and watched this occur. So I conclude ghost did it every time?

Its isimply ludicrous.

[mouse]

This photo is misleading and has many flaws.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2010/09/strata1.jpg

First it's only in a small area for it to be actual layers of earth it would continue for miles it doesn't
Its obvious its sediment rock layers from flooding.

Second there are no fossils of any living creatures between the layers.

If the layers were millions of years this tree could not survive long enough to be fossilized.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/images/FossilRecord/fossil3.jpg

or this tree

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsid_joggins_mcr1.JPG/800px-Lycopsid_joggins_mcr1.JPG

Also the layers on the bottom when dated are only a few years older than the top layer when rock samples are sent to independent laboratories.

Using Rock layers to prove Evolution is a very weak and misguided way to date the earth, that is why the "Geologic Column" is a joke and is not used anymore by "real" Science years after it was exposed as a lie.

http://www.creationliberty.com/images/loecolumn04.jpg

[mouse]

http://origin.arstechnica.com/journals/science.media/ancientBat.jpg




1Iz7GResDtQ

[ChumpDumper]

1Iz7GResDtQHey, mouse posted a YouTube he didn't watch.

[mouse]

4hgDyrY7TKw

[spurraider21]

The archaeoraptor fraud is well known, and national geographic retracted the story soon after.

In the face of new evidence, science has shown the flexibility to accept mistakes and move forward. There are plenty other viable dinosaur-bird transitional fossils

[lebomb]

LOL.............. evolution is straight up gahbage.

[mouse]

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfeatures/1600_640/images/live/p0/2r/79/p02r7937.jpg


A chicken embryo with a dinosaur-like snout instead of a beak has been developed by scientists

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150512-bird-grows-face-of-dinosaur



C4ywdxNsG54

[spurraider21]

archaeoraptor was bogus, archaeopteryx is legit

[RandomGuy]

This photo is misleading and has many flaws.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2010/09/strata1.jpg

First it's only in a small area for it to be actual layers of earth it would continue for miles it doesn't
Its obvious its sediment rock layers from flooding.

Second there are no fossils of any living creatures between the layers.

If the layers were millions of years this tree could not survive long enough to be fossilized.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/images/FossilRecord/fossil3.jpg

or this tree

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsid_joggins_mcr1.JPG/800px-Lycopsid_joggins_mcr1.JPG

Also the layers on the bottom when dated are only a few years older than the top layer when rock samples are sent to independent laboratories.

Using Rock layers to prove Evolution is a very weak and misguided way to date the earth, that is why the "Geologic Column" is a joke and is not used anymore by "real" Science years after it was exposed as a lie.



Old claim, long ago actively disproven.


Polystrate fossil trees show tree trunks passing through many layers and several meters of sediments. Obviously, the sediments must have been laid down suddenly, not at the gradual rates proposed by uniformitarian geology.

Response:

Sudden deposition is not a problem for uniformitarian geology. Single floods can deposit sediments up to several feet thick. Furthermore, trees buried in such sediments do not die and decay immediately; the trunks can remain there for years or even decades.


Links:

MacRae, Andrew, 1994. "Polystrate" tree fossils. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

Birkeland, Bill, 2004, 27 Jan. Fossil soils (paleosols) at Joggins. http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000116.html#7

Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html#G4a
Further Reading:

Frey, Robert W., 1982. Sedimentology photo. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 52(2): 614.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC331.html


Addressed here, as elsewhere.

Secondly, you claimed:


First it's only in a small area for it to be actual layers of earth it would continue for miles it doesn't
Its obvious its sediment rock layers from flooding.

Second there are no fossils of any living creatures between the layers [of rock shown in your picture].


For you to make that claim, requires evidence.

I assume for you to claim there are no fossils in between the layers of rock in that picture, means you have extensively dug in that area, and have recorded the results of your work, yes?

Can I please see those records?

Lastly, I note that what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[RandomGuy]

But, since this is a thread about evidence, I will give some.

As previously noted the process of fossilization is fairly well-documented.

Here is a good summary:


The heat and pressure from being buried in sediment can sometimes cause the tissues of organisms — including plant leaves and the soft body parts of fish, reptiles and marine invertebrates — to release hydrogen and oxygen, leaving behind a residue of carbon.

This process — which is called carbonization, or distillation — yields a detailed carbon impression of the dead organism in sedimentary rock.

The most common method of fossilization is called permineralization, or petrification. After an organism's soft tissues decay in sediment, the hard parts — particularly the bones — are left behind.

Water seeps into the remains, and minerals dissolved in the water seep into the spaces within the remains, where they form crystals. These crystallized minerals cause the remains to harden along with the encasing sedimentary rock.

In another fossilization process, called replacement, the minerals in groundwater replace the minerals that make up the bodily remains after the water completely dissolves the original hard parts of the organism.

http://www.livescience.com/37781-how-do-fossils-form-rocks.html

The heat and pressure come from simple compression. This draws on basic physics and chemistry. All things being equal, if you take a given amount of matter, and compress it, you get extra heat. Without this property, air conditioners would not function.

I will assume that mouse is not going to try to disprove air conditioning, although I wouldn't put it past "creation liberty university".

Such heat and pressure though, lead to a process called "permineralization"

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/paleo/fossils/permin.html


There are three subgroups of permineralizations: silicification, pyritization, and carbonate mineralizations.

As with almost all fossilization processes, silicification (because of its conditions for fossilization) tells us much about what type of environment the organism was likely to live in. Specific fossil types occur in environments with certain features. Silicification is a fossilization process whereby the organism is penetrated by minerals that form on the cells and cell structures. In this case, the mineral is silica, and because the mineral "follows" the internal structures of the organism during mineralization. This accounts for the amazing amount of detail found in permineralizations. For example, (for silicification) fluids in volcanic terrain often contain silica that could be absorbed by the plants themselves. This would indicate that a volcano was near the plant in the past. An interesting point that this example presents is that the plant was already beginning its fossilization process when it was still living. The silica that is taken up by the plants become embedded within them and when they die, the material (silica) is already present within them to quickly mineralize the organism and fossilize it. In this way, the silicification process can often show very fine detail.

Pyritization involves the mineral sulfur. Many of the plants are thus pyritized when they are in marine sediments since they often contain a large amount of sulfur. This could have been their natural habitat in the past or they could have been near enough to a marine environment to end up there to be pyritized (after being carried down by a river, flood, or some other method). Some plants are also pyritized when they are in a clay terrain, but to a lesser extent than in a marine environment.

Carbonate mineralizations occur both in marine and nonmarine environments. The most popular forms of carbonate mineralizations that are cited in biology are what are called "coal balls." Coal balls (which are often found in a round ball shape, which gives them their name) are often a fossilization of many different plants and their tissues. Often, they occur in the presence of seawater or acidic peat. Acetate peels can also usually be made to study the various organic material trapped within a coal ball. These peels may sometimes be fairly revealing of cellular detail.

[RandomGuy]

Hey, mouse posted a YouTube he didn't watch.

NO WAY?!?!?

That's ok. This thread is about evidence for evolution. I will address his copy pasta accordingly. Youtubes will be pretty much ignored, other than offering a chance to offer more evidence in response.

[RandomGuy]

LOL.............. evolution is straight up gahbage.

What do you think evolution is?

Define "evolution".

[RandomGuy]

4hgDyrY7TKw

People who don't understand things often dismiss them as being fraudulent.

What is true though, is not subjective. You cannot believe 2 plus 2 into being 5, just because you want to.

What do you think that video says? What evidence does it present, and why do you find it compelling?

[mouse]

What is true though, is not subjective. You cannot believe 2 plus 2 into being 5,

If one of the two is pregnant you will have your 5 remeber with enough time anything is possible.

your theory not mine.

[RandomGuy]

If one of the two is pregnant you will have your 5 remeber with enough time anything is possible.

your theory not mine.

http://www.bbbpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Screen-Shot-2013-09-30-at-7.32.59-PM.png

[Pick of Destiny]

I think having gills would be cool.

[mouse]

Kevin Kosner may not agree with you.

https://buydemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/waterworld-gills.png?w=378&h=198

[lint]

Keep this going. Thoughts?

[Hungry farmer]

I don't plow with an Ox anymore.

[Nevermind]

Evidence of man's evolution is everywhere. All you have to do is, oh hell never mind.

[Opinionater]

IMHO, denying the facts of evolution is simply ridiculous.

[RandomGuy]

I would be willing to bet Avante hasn't read any of the evidence, as Blake would attest.

[RandomGuy]

As long as you admit a design exists that's all you need. I'm sure you don't need a woman to describe her father before you take her out. Unless your looking for an excuse to not date her.

I think all your trivial questions you love to ask is really just your subconscious mind stalling on accepting the truth on how you may have came about and who you really are.

it must scare you or at the very least weigh heavily on your limited mind.

Nah.

[Insomniac]

Intelligent design proves God knows what he's doing.

[RandomGuy]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsid_joggins_mcr1.JPG/800px-Lycopsid_joggins_mcr1.JPG

Also the layers on the bottom when dated are only a few years older than the top layer when rock samples are sent to independent laboratories.

which they should be, since the tree was buried in a mudslide, which is the actual explanation for the phenomenon given by geologists.

Humans figured this one out over a hundred years ago.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html



John William Dawson (1868) described a classic Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are upright giant lycopod trees up to a few metres tall preserved mainly in river-deposited sandstones. These trees have extensive root systems with rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Dawson considered and rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of sediments deposited on river floodplains. An interesting feature of these examples is the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small reptiles) within the infilling of the stumps.

The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even 19th-century literature refutes their presentations.

[RandomGuy]

Cambrian explosion explained for Snakeboy, and (spoiler alert) it has nothing to do with a designer.

http://theconversation.com/which-species-will-survive-the-earths-sixth-mass-extinction-47893


But can diversity go on increasing forever? Charles Darwin certainly thought not, and believed that the Earth probably had a carrying capacity. He likened species to wedges driven into a log, each occupying their own niche or patch of ecospace. As the number of wedges approaches the carrying capacity, it becomes more difficult to insert new ones, until adding new wedges forces older ones out.

Sigmoidal curve, same shape as a diversity curve. wikimedia, CC BY-SA .

The idea that the Earth can only accommodate a finite number of species modifies our simple model somewhat. Early on in the process, numbers are far from carrying capacity, and growth is exponential. Later on, progressively harder brakes are put on, and the rate of growth slows down, so that diversity reaches a plateau. Together, these forces yield an S-shaped or sigmoidal curve.

So what do we see when we look at the real history of life in the fossil record? Fortunately, palaeontologists have systematically compiled catalogues of fossil genera, making it possible to compare. What they show, however, is a much more complex picture.

https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.c om/files/95571/width237/image-20150921-31528-xkje6.png

Careful Avante, it uses fancy words like "asymptote". Don't strain yourself looking that up.

[z0sa]

You have to be pretty silly to think millions - nay, billions - of years haven't passed. Assuming you arent blind.

What, you say? Oh another condescending "evolutionist"!

No, not at all. Just look into a night sky in the countryside and you will see undeniable, easily verifiable proof of the passage of untold ancient amounts of time elapsed. The speed of light is easily quantifiable. Since we know exactly the distance light travels over x amount of time, there is really no way for one to deny that the light of incredibly distant (and ancient - perhaps even dead) galaxies and stars has required millions even billions of years to reach us.

This isnt opinion. It is readily observable fact. Just speaking from personal experience, Once you accept that deep time, so to speak, exists, the merits of evolution become much more easily acceptable as well at least from a scientific standpoint.

[Pick of Destiny]

Supermoon Sunday night. Check it out.

[Quetzal-X]

End of Times

[Blake]

Intelligent design proves God knows what he's doing.

did you think that up all by yourself

[Insomniac]

did you think that up all by yourself

Yes, who helped you?

[admiralsnackbar]

Intelligent design assumes God knows what he's doing. FIFY. If we are actually an entirely separate organism from apes, why are we as horny, violent, and tribal as them? Why is our anatomy so similar?

[man on wire]

FIFY. If we are actually an entirely separate organism from apes, why are we as horny, violent, and tribal as them? Why is our anatomy so similar?

That is the way he wanted it.

[RandomGuy]

FIFY. If we are actually an entirely separate organism from apes, why are we as horny, violent, and tribal as them? Why is our anatomy so similar?

Why is one of our chromosomes fused?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

Really hard to explain that away for Avante et al.

If "because it was designed that way" is the answer, then why would such a designer purposefully make it look like it was an evolutionary accident, perfectly explained by the theory of evolution?

Makes the Spaghetti Monster a more plausible explanation than the bible God.

http://www.ncregister.com/images/sized/images/uploads/flying-spaghetti-monster-255x188.jpg