Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

My mistake; I was thinking of Joe when I responded to you.

How could you? I don't even look like Joe.

I'm half blind too!

Name one happenstance where "mutation" has added unto an existing strain of DNA instead of Corrupting an otherwise healthy DNA signature. Simply because DNA might lie dormant for generations until the environment that surrounds it might call it into action does not prove EVOLUTION, as the DNA is ALWAYS present. Much like the DNA contained in Both male and female humans. Why do men have DORMANT mammary glands? Because there is no need to prompt the existing DNA which might make them functional. And Science proves the DNA is there as Hormone injections in males have produced the activation of male mammary glands.

Mutation can do nothing but TAKE AWAY from a viable existing DNA, not add unto it. And of course the 800 lb. Gorilla in the room is the fact that MICRO EVOLUTION (horizontal)....within SPECIFIES is indeed a FACT of SCIENCE, but MACRO EVOLUTION, i.e., VERTICAL EVOLUTION, evolution outside a determined species, for example, no K-9 has ever been documented as morphing into a Feline..etc., such a happenstance has no demonstrable evidence to support the hypothesis of VERTICAL EVOLUTION.

No one can deny the fact of EVOLUTION....but most certainly MACRO evolution of having LIFE in its entirely evolving VERTICALLY from a single celled A SEXUAL life form to develop into all BIOLOGICAL life requiring TWO sexes to procreate is indeed an undocumented, unobserved, unreproducible SPECULATION.

I would most enjoy anyone enlightening Me as to how DEAD MATTER might come to life and then how a single celled A SEXUAL example thereof EVOLVED to produce the need of SEXUAL INTERCOURSE to procreate by requiring TWO SEXES. Just how did TWO SEXES GRADUALLY evolve from ONE SEX over millions or billions of years?

Mutation of an entire chromosome has resulted in chromosome 2 in humans that are clearly resulted from the fusing of two chromosomes of chimps. It doesnt mean that man descended from chimps but that there was a genome of the common ancestor to both that was close but separate by fusing these two chromosomes. To anyone, thats a new sequence of genes entirely.

ANyway, descended life forms do not just develop new genes and abandon the old. Old (fossil) genes remain on the genome of the decsended form but in a condition that is compressed , turned off, and set aside. The genome is itself, one of the bet fossils of how life progressed. I think you should do some more reading before jumping to baseless conclusions sir.



When did that Specific set of alleles form then? Are you saying that DNA, as a string of possibilities, has been created all fully formed just waiting for the environment to turn it on? Well, thats certainly interesting. Youve accepted (by that logic) that morphological modification is highly in play and that "fossil genes" do exist, but you seem to rely on some Moogah Boogah to have the "original" genome be fully "loaded" for all possibilities. SO then, what about the genomes of chimps and humans. How do you explain te complete similarity except for the chromosome 2, and several other genes.

To accept microevolution is kind of a cop out. The same instruments are in play within a species or among species , or among highre taxa. PS, the common ancetor of dogs and cats was a weasel like creature of the Aquitanian period of the Miocene.It was called Miacis (sp). MAny dog lovers will feel a twinge because they had been assured that their beloved canine friends were fully formed when they popped from the great Creators mind.
1 We dont see any evidence of fossil dogs or cats until about 22 million years ago. SO either they were hiding and didnt get fossilized or they werent even on the planet yet.

2Once we see the Miacis fossil, we note that the fossil record quickly presents examples of diversion and rapid development of both felids and canids from then on.

In Science as in life, the most simple answer, not the most complex possibility, is where the correct answer lies. For instance making a STATEMENT and presenting it as truth, void of the evidence to support that statement complicates the actual evidence. The remark in question is the "assumption" that is noted "clearly resulted" that TWO CHROMOSOMES must have mutated by fusing chimp DNA to make Human DNA.....when in fact the simplest answer that is supported by Science is the fact that All Biological Macro life have commonalities of DNA structure with a Chimp containing 98% of man's DNA.

What else would all biological life consist of if not COMMON DNA signatures ? All life comes from the same basic elements that are natural to the earth, Man shares DNA with FISH at a far lesser degree, are we then to assume that MILLIONS of mutations are responsible for the CHAIN that connects man and fish, if not why not? Why just the TWO from the CHIMP? Because it closer to man? The simple answer is the fact that some Superior Intelligence built upon the available elements and with each DESIGN greater intelligence resulted. You can name any LIFE FORM upon earth and man shares DNA with that life form, all graduated by degree. But Still you have presented NO OBSERVABLE and REPRODUCIBLE evidence to make your ASSUMPTION a FACT....with that assumption being, MUTATION "CLEARLY RESULTED" in adding to a DNA signature.

Where is the Experiment that backs up that assumption? And you speak of jumping to baseless conclusion and you present nothing but SUBJECTIVE SPECULATION as if it were demonstrable fact? Really? Clearly Resulted in not an OBJECTIVE statement but a statement made as an ASSUMPTION and not grounded in the Scientific Method of Observed, Reproducible, Experimentation, the only viable formula by which PHYSICAL SCIENCE determines FACTS.

But your entire argument is made moot by the simple fact that Marco (vertical) evolution has never been validated by the Scientific Method of Observed, Reproduced, Experimentation. You would present "philosophy" under the guise that Theoretical Science (philosophy) is in fact on the same plane as presenting factual evidence as is Physical Science and the Demonstrable Laws that support it. What you are presenting is entirely based upon "prima facie" evidence made under the assumption that what facts OBSERVED today somehow have remained constant without change through antiquity....which is absurd. In other words you are presenting evidence based upon the prima facie findings of possibility and probability, not FACTS. Yet this FAITH that you present in the things that you one day HOPE to prove is not as valid as the Faith based upon Prima Facie evidence that supports CREATION? If not, why not?

I would present to you that Creation is not only more possible as determined by the prima facie evidence but Vertical Evolution of LIFE from DEAD MATTER not POSSIBLE as determined by the falsification that occurs each and every time this hypothesis is placed to the test of the Scientific Method of Observed, Reproducible, Experimentation. Therefore, CREATION is far more probable because Creation has not once been subject to Falsification of the Scientific Method, and in fact.....ALL DNA simply REEKS of DESIGN.

It's CLEAR the the FLYING spaghetti monster has tapped his NOODLY appendage and created GOD, who then DESIGNED DNA. GOD REEKS OF FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER.

Largely because he wasn't up to just creating life - he had to make sure it fitted the environment it lived in and could adapt to changes in that environment, and complied with all the laws of physics, after all it's not as if he's omnipotent - oops, yes he is.

What crappy design.
He should have studied harder.
It's such a bumbling schemozzle it's like it was just thrown together, little pieces at a time, over a long period of time, with lots of failures, dead ends and redundancies.

Okay, I'll put you down as 'diest'.

Evolution has been haulted ever sinse soda pop, music and potatoe chips were invented to inhance entertainment... just had to go there.

It appears that your English classes were "haulted" before you got to the spelling component.

ALL life has specific percentages of the same DNA , the rising percentage of which stonrgly evidences evolution, not anything else. The fact that the entire chromosome 2 , complete with new telomeres and centromeres, is an exact replicant of chromosomes 1 and 2 of a chimp . Fusing of chormosomes , surely is the simplest explanation for thsi specific genome structure.

THE DNA of existing life forms do have an increasing commonality with other related lifeforms. This is not so good for Creationists because most of these lifeforms have developed in specific time pewriods within the geologic record. We dont have any DNA examples but we do have the fossils of these animals and when the FIRST appeared in the geologic record.
The "falsification" of that is quite routine in that I can say that a fossil of a specific animal (based upon what we now know in paleontology) should be found in rocks of a specific erathem and stage. AND,based upon our knowledge of worldwide geology and age of sedimentary deposist, we should find them in such and such a location. If we DONT find them, the method of falsification has shown us to be in error(Unfortunately it hasnt worked out that way). CAn the Creation "Scientists" say the same? NO because they rely on a dubious fqact that all life was created fully formed and the only reason that species HAVE NOT been found in earlier sediments is because they havent been stumbled over YET. Thats not science, thats treasure hunting without a map.

AS far as experimentation, there are scores of experiments in the evo devo world where embryos are predicted to be intermediate forms when certain genes are turned on and we see what happens. Since ratite birds and galliform biords DNA contains fossil genes for several morph features , such as teeth, we can create birds with teeth by just turning ON these fossil genes. Is that an experiment?

OR more to the point, I remember the construction of evolutionary trees based upon form and fossils. Molecular biology has become a way to "check" these trees. WE routinely sample and compare specific genic components from individual genes, one of which is the gene that encodes growth hormone, the comparison of the percentages of these growth hormone "Layout" similarities allows the construction of genomically derived "trees" among entire suites of species. Species of mammals like whales, hippos, camels, chimps, gumans, alpacas etc etc. With the percentages of DNA similarities resulting, e can see the percentage relationships and by comparing (mathematically) the similarity (as a percentage) , the evolutionary relationships can be constructed and the evolutionary trees can be checked to thos based upon fossils alone. In this respect the hippo was seen to be the closest relative to a whale (genitically)http://www.ucjeps.berkely.edu/tol.pdf.
High throughput DNA sequencing has enabled us to conduct these experiments to develop highly accurate trees of life . NSF has been working on assembling a comprehensive one, most of the work of which has been already completed and presented in the literature. The results of this work alwysmakes me recall Dobzhansky's statement that "
"nothing in biology makes any sense except in the light of evolution"
Other experiments in the areas of mapping genetic diversities of humans have let us understand (through the accumultion of specific mutations) how humans have migrated from their source and to map the number of migrations and by whom. Weve also been able to map the genome of the neanderthal from work done by Svante Paabo at MAx Plqanck. (OOOPS , of course this data requires that we assume that humans did derive from something else and migrated from this birthplace which sorta implies evolution). In this case the accumulation of genes has given us a pretty good ROADMAP of their travels. How do you view this information in light of Creation??
I can rattle off several other larger scale "EXPERIMENTS" that you seem to want to deny the existence of.

If the fossil record and genetics are looked at objectively and without the crutch of some preordained worldview, then you would hardly say that the genome and fossil record "Reeks of design" . IN fact, DNA shows that such a designer was incompetent at best since even the mistaked are preserved in the DNA strands and they are only removed in the vast stretches of time.

You havent explained how derived island species get there (especially when island animals occur on islands whose geologic history is brief in time.

I haven't read all the posts in this topic, so my thoughts may have already been expressed here.
What I want to say is that evolution is only a theory, just like everything built by mind, just like any inductive statement it needs faith in it. "Do you believe in mutation?" Why should I? There is no proof for it to exist, just because none has ever proved anything (unless in mathematics? perhaps). Scientists have a certain set of hypotheses which they use for the sake of their pleasure or for the sake of material benefits. The results obtained through these hypotheses are beneficial, so we use these hypotheses. But only those who totally miss the point, those who don't understand that hypotheses are chosen ONLY on the account that we remember that after them there appeared certain phenomena, those so-called, materialists think that those hypotheses are thruths.
You can never prove anything if you don't describe what means to prove. But who told you that your criterion is right? It is impossible.

You should do more reading fm, or possibly less, before arriving at that ridiculous conclusion. I'm a descended form myself actually and there's nothing in here that is "compressed, turned off and set aside".

One of these days you might realise that these matters are beyond your capacity to comprehend them. Irreducible complexity cannot be "compressed" into your head or "turned off and set aside" so that it neatly fits into it no matter how flattering it is for you believe it can. Teleology, despite being dressed up with brilliantine words, is still teleology.

Grrr, that pdf was in my file of data of the "genomes on the web" site and its a[[arently been sucked up into a larger "Tourist site" . Ill find the data as it exists today. (The actual experiments of the tree of life and genomics are really several years old and , in biology, that means ancient news.

ANOTHER experiment that had been done several years ago in Russia was the determination of species insertion of the HERV-K retrogene (virus like retrolelement) into the genome of the common ancetor of simeans maybe 15 million years ago. The HERV-k e;lements have about 14 sepearet components all of which exist in several amounts mong pongids and hominids. The Russians did a cute experiment, they took the HERV-K components and the flanking gene elements on both sides of these elements and then searched the genomes of various other apes and monkeys. They could compare elements from old world monkeys, new world monkeys, apes and chimpanzees. The greatest similrity was between us and the chimps but there was a functional decrease in similr elements all the way down to the new world monkeys which shared less than 3 HERV-K elements woth humans . The "impled evolutionary tree" was actually a map that pointed to where humans and monkeys diverged. The point Ive been trying to convey is that there are many many EXPERIMENTS going on based upon genetic evolution that are used to falsify or predict things based upon evolution AND

wait for this....


NOTHING , thats right, NOTHING , has refuted the concept of evolution. BUT, it has , indeed been useable to take apart Creatinonist concepts (not by actual targeting because no scientist would waste their time on conducting experiments disproving Creation)
I repeat that, These findings have been able to remove almost all supposed evidence for Creationists and they include the large areas of:
1geology has proven the age of earth,

2The breakup of continents has shown how life develops in different geographical areas
3genetics has certainly shown the DERIVED relationship of all life .

So your solution to the complexity of evolution is to propose a magical being with no explained origin which *poofed* everything into existence? If that seems like a simpler explanation to you then you haven't thought things through very well.

Bullshit . . . this is the favorite dodge of the god crowd. It relies on a phony definition of theory. Can you tell us one good reason why we should buy your imaginary friend "theory?" What evidence do you have for your theory? How has your theory been tested? What predictions have been made from your theory which have been proven beyond all doubt?

Find out what theory means to a scientist before you spread horseshit like this.

If Eudie can't I can. It is because buying the theory got us to where we are and without us buying it we would still be relying on muscle power of men and beasts. That's not only a good reason but the only reason and it is why we have bought it. Only someone disenchanted, discontented or disgusted about where we are could possibly think otherwise. Malcontents gather around Setanta. What do you have to lose when you have a nice Christian world as your comfort zone and you can protest to your heart's content without risking it disappearing?

Well- not thinking it through very well, another specious and circular assertion, is a marked improvement on not thinking it through at all, as in ros's case, and, indeed, being incapable of thinking it through at all because of the blinkers which a juvenile mind put on so as to look clever within a narrow milieux (a French word derived from the Latin for middle or medium), not noted for academic excellence, and which have now become grafted onto its head so firmly that there's nothing to be done about it except to note it and point it out to those tempted to follow the same path.

First, I'd advise you to be a bit more polite.
Second, I am not going to give you any new theory to believe in. I seemed to enumerate the reasons why I reject any claims of theory which wants to be something more than just working hypothesis from which we somehow expect certain results.
Third, to a certain extent, I am scientist myself. I know whereof I speak.

Colloquially, theory and hypothesis are often used interchangebly. To that end, the American Collegiate Dictionary has added a segment about what a theory actually means in the sciences. Id suggest you read that explanation and the major change that you should undergo in your opinion.
(HINTS: Think, GERM THEORY, THEORY OF RELATIVITY, THEORY OF UNIVERSAL MAGNETISM, THEORY OF CONTINENTAL DRIFT, QUANTUM THEORY) In other words, it waaay stronger than "Working hypothesis".