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

To each their own. Like minds flock like birds of a feather.

Oh there's no doubt that evolution changes the equation.
The problem, though, isn't that evolution does anything to disprove the existence of a prime mover. In fact it does more toward opening our minds to wonder at the complexity of such work.
The problems you foresee come about chiefly due to those whom, for centuries, had the arrogance to proclaim knowledge of god.

Evolutionists may be the people hoping to use evolution to thier own ends, I really don't know. Scientists are not evolutionists, they are not interested in the politics of thier discoveries, or shouldn't be. Scientific reality has replaced a lot of myths over the years. If it someday means an end to fatigue or paralysis, so be it. It has previously been responsible for the irradication of a plethora of human sufferings.

Religions are notoriously rooted in doctrine, in a world that is all about change. History shows plainly that you either adapt to the changes or you die out.
There are already new world religions waiting in the wings to take the place of the old outdated dogma. Man will simply find a new way to believe in a prime mover.
The value of philosophy and critical thinking in interpreting truth from fiction isn't apparent to all. And there are always those waiting to take advantage of this lack. Still, the world will march on and carry us with it.

All of human knowledge is, indeed, next to nothing against infinity. But the ant still carries it's food, and humans will continue to seek understanding.
Scientific materialism has , and will continue to change the world. We haven't, and probably won't change human nature one bit. There will always be some group that stands to lose by accepting change. In our recent history that group has quite often been Christianity. Chiefly because of the arrogance of the presumption to know god and his work upon which it is based.

Science is not the new religion, Science has merely opened the door.

Obviously I agree with that.



As it can't do that it is not a problem.



Not for me. I find it simple and trivial. It does the "what", insofar as its fossil samples are only a minute proportion of life's manifestations, and the "when", insofar as the instrumentation is reliable which I admit might be reasonably accepted. It is silent on the "how", the "why", the "whence" and the "wherefore". Which are the interesting aspects of the true complexity. The "what" and the "when" are as simple in respect to house design in different climates for example. The physiognomy of house design or temple structures is more interesting than animal design because it shows the human intellect at work. It is just as simple as well. Archeologists and art historians dig up the remains, date them and weave the winds with fanciful teleological explanations which sound plausible if they are going out of one ear as fast as they enter the other. Particularly when voiced in that "expertise" dialect and accompanied by appropriate musical accompianment and pictures chosen to illumunate the point the speaker wishes to run past your noddle as you sit on your arse munching on a pack of popcorn. Evolution seems to close the mind to me. I know the how, the why, the whence and the wherefore of interior design in those restaurants to which one takes a young lady on a first date. The when and the what are blindingly, often painfully, obvious. What whitwashed walls and formica topped tables, wiped with a dishcloth as you take your seats, would do to the birth rate is a complexity of some interest. Not much imo all other things being equal.

I have been interested in restaurant technique ever since I heard the hero of the Truffaut movie, The Man Who Loved Women, say that restaurants were threatening places for men. A glib phrase really until I thought about it in relation to some of the men I knew. And my scientific study of them, fieldwork in the pub mainly, helped me to understand other items which are threatening to men. Other men go fishing to keep threat levels down but I prefer the philosophical approach because it's less trouble. And anyway--it's not fair tempting God's little creatures, which are obviously completely stupid. It's cheap cunning. It doesn't look cheerful. Shooting fish in a barrel makes more sense if you don't mind lead pellets mixed in with the bones.

My tentative speculations have arrived at the point where I'm allowing for the possibility that the emancipation of women is threatening to men. Not that there's anything wrong with the emancipation of women of course. Just that it might be threatening to men. I'm not a misogynist. But I am aware that it might be a double bluff. At least it is something to bear in mind.

Anyone who can't see how uninteresting a fin turning into a wing is compared to that subject is probably at a loss what to make of my posts. To be able to find a similarity suitable as evidence between a flagella critter and a carburettor and not get laughed to scorn is objective evidence of the state of the witnesses to such proceedings.



Somebody had to have such arrogance. And nerve. Assuming you are in favour of the outcome compared to other possibilities. The idea that we would have this outcome had nobody had such arrogance is, to my mind, ludicrous. Problems are caused by the exigencies of the circumstances and not as a result of the arrogance.



I proceed on the assumption that I do know.



Ideally yes. But can they help being nowadays? Even Einstein wrote to the President about the use of the atom bomb. We have legal restraints on scientists. The statement applies more to Torricelli. The first cause of your TV. Teaching the evolution of that would be far more educational than the evolution of flies. But even Torricelli had to wait upon glass-blowers and alchemists etc.



Which myths have you in mind?



But doctrine is rooted in pragmatism. Or tries to be. Against all the odds too. And your "change" might be superficial. Real change would be more fundamental than our 21st century fads. Or our epochal ones. A change in our natures. In which case the doctrines would be out of date. If not then they wouldn't be. It is possible to adapt to changes and still die out. The capacity to readily adapt to changes might cause the dying out. The meek inheriting the earth type of thing.



No it won't. We are in charge of our destiny. That's a doctrine. You sound like a fatalist.



Human knowledge is everything. Without it there is nothing.

You ended the speech in the customary way wayne. The good evolutionist doesn't get past me just because he's a relief from the bad evolutionist.

What ineluctable delight it is to trumpet Torricelli.

I sense the barometric pressure rising at the merest thought of watching tv to glean the weather forecast after the news.

All hail.

I was referring to the Torricellian vacuum and not the barometer. He was the first man to capture "nothing". Hence nothing could be studied and applications of it found. In light bulbs and valves particularly.

A Jesuit too.

Speaking of similarities the jellyfish is 97% water and our atmosphere is 99%water. I conclude that jellyfish and our atmosphere share a common ancestor.

Glub, glub, glub

Only on really really really rainy days.

There is a lot of evidence that support UFOs/Aliens were/are on our planet, so do you believe they exist ? Till date it is believed that it is impossible that the pyramids were built by humans back then with their limited technology, so i conclude that the pyramids came about over millions of years by chance.

Evolution is even more a religion than Islam or any other religion. Believing in a deity requires faith considering no one has seen one.
-Evolution claims change occurs over millions of years in which case no living organism will ever live long enough to see its species evolve so we take it on faith that we do evolve.
-People believe in a deity because they observe the sun, moon, stars, our complexity and how we all complement each other, and they conclude that a deity must have set everything up
-Evolutionists believe in evolution because they observe fossils, genetic code similarities among species, rock layers and they conclude that we are all related thus they must have a common ancestor they evolved from.
-Creationists can't accept evolution because they have been thought in church all their lives that a deity created all this and the idea of evolution creates a cognitive dissonance.
-Evolutionists can't accept creation because they have been thought in school that there is no evidence for creation and that there is evidence for evolution.

All "evidence of evolution" is pure assumption. It is a bad conclusion or interpretation of a good observation. I don't even feel right now like going into detail on how rock layers can form simultaneously, it is possible for older layers of rock to be on top of newer layers of rock (happens all the time in moving streams of water), the age of fossils cannot be accurately determined by measuring u235's decay to lead, carbon dating or any other method because the rates are not consistent and are condition dependent. Under certain environmental conditions (eg. in water) an acorn can be petrified in a matter of months and under other conditions in a matter of years. Miller and Urey's experiment is nonsense, they made 98% poison and 2% amino acids, they excluded oxygen in the gas chamber because it would messed up their experiment, they used mild charges because actual charges would destroy the amino acides, they made only 2 of the 20 amino acids and those 2 were scrambled or deformed. The genetic difference between us and chimps is between 2-5%, a 1.5% genetic difference accounts for a difference in 48,000,000 nucleotides; bear in mind that if i mess with as much as 3 of your nucleotides the results will be fatal. Vestigial features (eg. the human appendix) are not really vestigial; our appendix aids our immune system; sure you can live without it but you can also live without your right eye). The "gill slits" in an embryonic human are not gill slits, they do not have anything to do with breathing but help make up our ears. Over 50 years ago the idea of our embryo having gill slits was falsified but we just kept on calling it that and now it is in our college textbooks. I can go on all day.

Why is it easy to believe that the face of George Washington on mount Rushmore was designed but the actual person called George Washington came to be over millions of years by chance.

If we evolved from monkeys then why are they still alive ? Is it not survival of the fittest implying elimination of the unfit? Monkeys should have human rights, and civil rights since they are our ancestors. Humans should be able to marry and breed with chimps. Why cage them ? I'll tell you why BECAUSE WE WERE DESIGNED TO BE HUMAN AND THEY TO BE MONKEYS. WE HAVE BEEN HUMAN SINCE THE BEGINNING, ALWAYS WILL BE AND ARE PERFECT THE WAY WE ARE.

Oh i'm so sorry, my bad. A watermelon is 96% water and a jellyfish 97% water, thus i conclude that jellyfish and watermelons share a common ancestor

I suppose it is simple and trivial when viewed as such. I see evolution as a method. We see evidence of it in any manipulative endeavor we undertake. Capitalism takes advantage of it in order to maximize profits.



I don't think restaurants are threatening to men in general.
There are many types of fishermen in the world.
There is the so-called purist, who fishes always to the fish on the fin, never trusting to luck, only skill and knowledge.
There are those who fish the water, relying on knowledge of habits to provide a bit of luck.
There are those who fish for the pan, caring little for else than thier stomachs.
Those who combine the elements of each to create a religion of sorts.

Men are threatened by responsibility for that which is beyond thier control. They explore the boundaries of thier control, but only when the responsibility remains apart from themselves.



I tend to think realist. We have charge of our position in the stream, yet no control over the flow. We are those fish of which you speak. Part and parcel of the river, we are not the river.



To what, or whom is human knowledge everything?
We are the observer. Knowledge is subject to observation.
We discover elements, we don't invent them. We are manipulators and opportunists, not true creators.

Of course we can attempt to step outside of time, and then take the view that we are our own creators.
That's pretty complex though, and it creates a loop.

Bullshit, our atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen, and other gases--it's full of gases. Hey . . . wait a minute . . . you're full of gas. I conclude that you and our atmosphere share a common ancestor.

Once again--and it's tedious to point this out--humans did not evolve from monkeys. Nobody with a lick of sense claims we did.

What did humans evolve from then?

Of course we can also attempt to step outside of time and then take a view at a species evolving over millions of years, but thats pretty impossible because 110 years from now everyone on earth right now will be too dead to observe evolution, and people who live a million years from now are currently too busy not existing to tell us how it went.

However, the past does leave it's mark.

What mark ?

Please enlighten me specifically on what this mark is because I can say nature leaves a mark of a creator. The existence of galaxies similar to ours, a dead star becoming a black hole with its gravity acting as a convenient vacuum cleaner in space [without black holes the rate of meteors heading to earth will be enormous], the coincidence of earth having a perfect distance from the sun [any closer and we burn, any further and we freeze], the convenience of the moon controlling the tides [blow up the moon and see what happens to the oceans]. Stars just so happen to be conveniently positioned [some forming diagrams that can be referenced] to aid in navigation of our planet. EVEN IF evolution was true it is a testament that someone thought we needed to evolve.

You tell me that these complementary systems along with a million others I did not even mention don't exhibit design much less purposeful design implying that a designer is responsible.

What you are telling me is that a design designed it self (like saying a pen made itself or a PS3 made itself)

So now you tell me what mark specifically do you speak off?

First the Bible does not say that all life forms were created at the same time. It shows that they were created at different times. And it does not place a limit on the times. In the case of dinosaurs they could have been created and destroyed even before God created man or other forms of life.

God would have had a purpose in creating then destroying animals. They were not mistakes.






1. These ‘lines’ of evolution are not complete. You can’t show at every stage of development a fossil. People line up fossils perhaps according to the ‘date’ of the fossils to try show a link, but the facts are that sizes of skulls and other traits don’t follow each other and publishes pictures not to scale to give the appearance of evolution. These only proves that animals were similar to each other. Indeed we have animals that are similar to each other today, Doesn’t mean that we evolved from them. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks. Most fossil show that basic kinds of living things appeared suddenly and did not change appreciably for long periods of time. Sorry fossils don’t support evolution.

2 & 3. I don’t see how these support evolution. You are saying because brown moths are found on an island and black ones are found on the mainland, its proof of evolution. The animals on the main land and on the island are still one kind.


4. Or both could have been created with similar DNA. 2% is still a huge difference. So if this is as compelling as there is then you got some work to do.

National Geographic News
September 24, 2002

“in the mid 1970s, when they compared proteins in humans and chimpanzees, (Pan troglodytes), and found that they were 99 percent identical.
Further experiments by the same team showed that 98.5 percent of DNA sequences are shared by humans and chimps.
However, these researchers may have been missing some crucial information, said Roy J. Britten, a geneticist at the California Institute of Technology in Corona del Mar. Britten is a co-developer of the method originally used to look for genetic similarities in the 1970s.
The early methods only take into account certain types of evolutionary change called substitutions, said Britten. Substitutions occur when one of the four molecules that join to form DNA—called a nucleotide—is replaced by one of the other three types.
An evolutionary geneticist at the National Institute of Genetics in Mishima, Japan. "There is no consensus about how to count numbers or proportion of nucleotide insertions and deletions," he said.
Despite the small genetic differences between our species, the chimpanzee doesn't suffer from many afflictions that regularly affect people—illnesses ranging from malaria to some types of cancer. Studying the genetic differences between chimps and humans may provide insight into some of these human diseases.”
Like it say there is no consensus about how to count numbers or proportion of nucleotide insertions and deletions. Basically the 2% could (and does) amount to a world of differences. It like a Roman in 105 BC (or whatever) saying we have control of 97.7% of the world. Yes from his point of view it’s true because he is missing information.

6. Even if evolution had occur the fossil record could not be relied upon due to the fact that fossil have to have the right circumstances to form. Fossils do though show a history of earth, with a lot of missing data.

I like when a man drives home from work, and notices a house being built, because of the time he never see anyone working on it. But each day the house progresses a bit until its finished. Does the man conclude that, that house came about by itself because of what he saw, or does he realize that he does not have all the facts and that someone must have been working on it. So looking at the fossil record and seeing that we don’t have all the information, what are we to conclude?

It shows earth’s history, life forms created then “mass extinctions” then other life forms created, it does not show any life forms evolving.
7.There is no place on the earth where a complete record of the rocks is present. Some areas have been the sites of deposition of sediment for millions of years, whereas other regions have been subjected to the wearing action of natural agencies for equal periods of time. To reconstruct the history of the earth, scattered bits of information from thousands of locations all over the world must be pieced together. The results will be at best only a very incomplete record.
In other words, the entire geologic column, with its high-sounding eras, periods and epochs, is merely a matter of guesswork, a hypothetical structure. There is no place on earth where such a succession of rock strata exists.

8. Gosh! I guess we were lucky then to have oxygen here. Really oxygen and nitrogen were provided by a creator so that the earth could support life.

9. There is nothing to prove that life began very simply and evolved to more complex forms. There is nothing to dispute that a creator first formed simple life forms then later form more complex forms. The fossil record is not complete.





First science knows about powerful invisible bodies, black holes. So just because God’s form is different from ours you want to write him off. It is not impossible that a powerful invisible life form exists. Also man has been able to turn energy into matter. So again it is not impossible that a life with huge amount of power could form matter.

Creation of man. The Bible says that God form man from the dust. And this is true man is made of naturally occurring components, then God gave him life. Eve was formed from Adam’s rib. Today man has clone sheep and many other animals. So this fits right into science.

The ‘days’ in the creation account are not 24 days, but are thousand of years long each of them. The Bible does not same that the 7th ‘day’ ended so the last 7000 years or so are in fact still part of the 7th day. The days focus on specific events that the creator caused in readying the earth for man. It states that land appeared in the ancient seas. Day and night came to be distinguishable (possibly because of the removal of cosmic dust from around the earth). Plant life appeared, followed by fishes, birds, land animals and finally man.

It does not go into every detail but what it shows agrees 100% with true science.

The Bible also speaks of the circle of the earth and that it is hanging upon nothing.



Fact 1: Life comes from life.
Science has never and will never prove otherwise.

Fact 2: Interbreeding weakens the species
So it an individual animal evolved it would be hard to pass on its genes without weaking the gene pool.

Fact 3: Fossil record, geologic record and every other ‘evidence’ is mutilated, lost or difficult to interpret. And the ones who make the interpretation often have strong opinions to what the evidence will prove.

Fact 4: Science has been wrong before.
Science once taught that:
Heat is a fluid called caloric
The atom is the smallest particle of matter, and that was impossible to divide it?
An impassable barrier between matter and energy prevented any possibility of one changed into the other
Sleep is caused when the nerve cells shrink, thereby no longer making connect
Human evolved. (Oh, wait they since think this one is true. Give them a few years.)

So every recipe we have today was taken from another recipe which was taken from still another one, a more basic one. So in fact all recipes we have today originally came from just one very basic recipe. And that one was just change a part at a time. No, if anything we still have the very basic recipes from the earliest, maybe changed in certain ways but a bread recipe is still a bread recipe.

I mention my IQ only to show how pointless it is to say “only clever people understand evolution.” There are idiots to geniuses on both sides of the issue.