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

Prove your imaginary friend, "god," exists and that your bible is the inerrant, divine word of your imaginary friend.

Like I said evolution does not answer any question, just pushes them away.
I realise that the apes of today and man if evolved would of been from a common ancestor, long since dead. But that creature would probably have been near enough to an ape to be called an ape.

If evolution is only concerned about life after existence, then its a baseless theory. And even focusing on life itself, evolution still falls apart. Too many gaps.

I write this not for you. (I doubt that you will even read most of it. If you do you will not beleive it.) I write for the readers, the ones that will look at all the facts and make up their own mind instead of bindly following the others.

The Bible 100% agrees with true science. The Bible is a Book of true prophecy. No other publication has ever had such an effect for good on people when read in humility and reasonalbeness.

If you placed old the parts of a computer into a bag and shook that bag for billions of years, would you have a working computer by the end?

Obviously, you are not one of the latter..

"Bindly?" Perhaps you meant "blindly." I don't "blindly follow" evolution--it's not a religion or a political creed. I accept it as the best explanation offered of how the diversity of life on this planet came about.

The bible, on the other hand, almost never agrees with science, and comes up with some hilariously implausible bullshit, like the Noah story, for one excellent and hysterically funny example. People who follow the bible have slaughtered untold millions for their opposing religious beliefs, or for a lack of religious belief. That's not the fault of either the bible or religion--but don't try to peddle that bullshit that the bible makes people "better."

The bible offers absolutely no explanation for the diversity of life on earth, other than the creation fairy tale. So, if you demand proof of evolution, it is equally fair for someone to demand that you prove the reality of your imaginary friend before anyone proceeds any further.

I seriously doubt if you will want to do so, but the free entertainment around here seems inexhaustible, so i await your response with breath abated.

"Those who" is always a conveniently anonymous collective to argue against. I'm a card-carrying member of the those-who club, so allow me to answer.

You misinterpret what the term "just 2%" means. To stick with your cooking metaphor, what it really means is this: When you compare the DNA-recipees for humans and chimpanzees, you find that their texts are almost identical to the letter. The only variation is that once in every fifty letters (on average), you get a difference of one letter. After each of those one-letter variations, the texts go back to being identical again for the next stretch of 49 letters (on average).

I challenge you to find me a cookbook where the text for two recipes, never mind thousands, are that similar, yet the meals they describe taste substantially different.

And yet the Bible doesn't even agree 100% with itself. Don't believe me? Then just answer me this: What's the name of Jesus's grandfather on his father's side?

The parts of a computer are inanimate objects. Inanimate objects can not have the same evolutionary process as living beings. Living beings are connected over time because of entirely natural processes such as biological reproduction. The same can not be said about the parts of a computer.

Your analogy is false.

There is one very good reason why I would not try to prove evolution to you, roy. Do you mind if I call you roy? Because you don't want to know about scientific method or what the researchers are doing and have done. You are old enough to be here on a2k, but have no notion of these things yet. Proof enough that you don't care. All you care about is trying to spread discontent as you preach. I don't care if you believe in a god, by the way. That is strictly up to the individual. It also has nothing to do with evolution. I don't buy your Bible interpretations and neither does anybody else of a sound mind. I have a term for ones such as you - irreducible density. Thak you for your time. Expect to hear no more from me.

I will not give you the complete recipes. But no matter how many word there are in them, the two meal would taste complete different by changing one letter.
One says add crab and the other says add crap.

irreducible density

Joe(my new favorite)Nation

I did not mean to offend anyone. I dont care to be called irreducible density. No one has been able to 'prove' (show it could work) evolution to me. They say only clever people can understand or something like that. Then run away. (By the way my IQ is over 147)

Yes but the chance of the parts been just right is more than the chance evolution created you.

To everyone, I have to go. I am not running away. Will be back.

SO then, are you saying that all forms of life were all created at the same time? or were they created "as needed"?. We dont see any dinosaurs before a certain age and not after a certain age. Also, we dont see any mammals in the fossil record from the PAleozoic. Were the mamals all hiding and werent being fossilized?
If you want to make some sense, you have to explain why extinction works for you but not evolution?


Its being worked on asmultidsiciplined research , however, just because YOU state that evolution must include the origins of life isnt something that scientists are going to lose any sleep over. Your opinion is kinda biased by a need to believe your "book of stories".


LEssee. Science has several lines of evidence to support evolutionary theory

1Several dozens of very complete intermediate fossils that show the development of say, hoofed animals to whales, gymnosperms to angiosperms, fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals

2Bisogeography, where in the preent time we have species that are totally unique to a geographic area or an island and are , yet, related to similar species on the mainland.

3Biogeography II-where we can see the development of new species on islands that, in past geologic hoistory were all part of a mainland and had later become separated

4Genetics-where we can see (like in humans and chimps) that, while 97.7% of our gene complimemnts are the same, there are unique mutations in each species that could only occur after each specie separated from the "Mother" ancestor. This is about as compelling as you can get

5 GeneticsII. We can see the overall similarity among the many clades of animals (and plants) in their gene complements but still we see the uniqueness of specific portions of the same gene areas in species that had split from the simpler forms

6The fossil record records a sequence of the appearance of life that is quite dependent upon the events in earth's history. That is, when "mass extinctions" had occured, entire new fossils appear in the fossil record after that point to show how life made some "turns" in its development

7The development and evolution of individual genera and families (Macro evolution) follows closely the geologic record and NO deviation has ever been evidenced . (We dont see any Paleocene trilobites or Mississippean elephants and sabre toothed tigers)

8The appearnace of life on the planet can be seen in the fossil record as mere developments based upon the atmospheric availability of oxygen and nitrogen

9 There is nothing to dispute that life began very simply and proceeded on to more complex forms. The fossil record is quite complete in this evidence


All the above (and I alpologize for not being more complete in example presentations(Im sure that as the day progresses Ill think of more arcane ones), ALL THE ABOVE, are clearly evidenced and fit the overall theory of natural selection (even punctuated equilibrium). WEvidence abounds and more is laid out daily.
What evidence does the typical Bible believer have to offer bsides the Bible itself. There relly is no science in there . Its all basically an attempt at a hagiology of the patriarchs, a feeble attempt at hitory, a bunch of made up tales that were meant to explain the infinite to ignorant tribesmen, And finally, it was some screwed up means to set lessons of conduct.
I repeat, there is no science in any Bible, none.

If ya gotta go....

Think about this, with that statement you have given a very good recipe for how evolution is actually acccomplished. AS dr Miller says"Evolution is just taking what you have and doing something different with it"

By the way, youll probably find that most people here have similar or higher ones.

Also IQ and ignorance arent mutually exclusive.

... and you found that crap recipe in an actual cookbook? That, after all, was my question. Admit it: you made this example up as you went along. And ironically, you affirmed the general point even as you made it up. I bet you came up with one variant first and then changed one letter---which mimics the process of evolution rather than challenging it.

Also, what about my question about Jesus's grand daddy on Joseph's side: what's your answer?

Nonsense. Life started out with single cell life. A generation at that level is about 20 minutes. That's 72 generations a day, that's more than 26,000 generations a year. Over million and millions of years, that billions and billions of iterations. It doesn't take that long to sort out what's useful and what isn't. You have no concept of scale.

... which must itself have been preceded by autocatalytic chemical reactions, whose turn-around time would have been even shorter. John Maynard Smith has a book on the major transitions of evolution, titled The Origins of Life. It is short, readable, and outlines succinctly how chemistry can give rise to heredity, heredity can give rise to procaryotic cells, and so forth. To investigate into the possible pathways on which life started is an embarrassment of riches.The only reason we don't know how life emerged from non-life is that we lack evidence for choosing between the myriad possibilities.


Additionally, in each of those generations, you have billions, maybe trillions of individuals procreating in parallel, making the range of experimentation that much larger.