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

@brianjakub,

I'm not your teacher. There are plenty of articles on the big bang and evolutionary theory. Go study them if you're not educated in them.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I wasn't looking for an education. I was wanting to compare one layman's version of the origin of life or the universe in the Bible, to another layman's version, namely you. You like to talk about how smart atheists are and how stupid believers are, so let's see it. If you want to run with the big dogs you have to get off the porch.

1 Reply

It appears to me that you just came here to slug it out with the "Darwinists" (a truly hilarious label). I see you won't get off the porch when someone confronts you with solid reasoning and evidence. I guess you only want to slug it out with those whom you think you can safely ridicule.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Remember, the basic underlying idea behind biological evolution is very simple and broad, it's descent with modification. And there have never been any discoveries which conflict with that.

You're trying to pick a fight where there is none. The disagreement is about the likelihood that the mechanism of modification is random mutation and natural selection, not the fact that change happened.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

@Leadfoot,
Having no reason to accept that your claim is true, I'm not going to rise to your creationist, idiotic bait. Read what I wrote again--any mutation which confers a reproductive advantage will be preserved.

You're such a witless god-botherer, which is not, of course, any surprise.

They are just reporting on the findings of the folks you presumably believe. They are not my claims or those of the Discovery Institute you pompous ass.

There, just wanted to see what it was like to be like Set. Not all that satisfying to tell you the truth. Maybe my store of epithets isn't up to his standards.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Remember, the basic underlying idea behind biological evolution is very simple and broad, it's descent with modification. And there have never been any discoveries which conflict with that.
You're trying to pick a fight where there is none. The disagreement is about the likelihood that the mechanism of modification is random mutation and natural selection, not the fact that change happened.

Sorry. I really don't understand what you are saying.

My intention was to answer your question, not to pick a fight. And the simple answer to what you wrote, is, "no", the recent discoveries in human evolution do not in any way undermine our deeper understanding of evolution.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

It's obvious you are not willing to expand your education and knowledge. That doesn't affect me or anyone else. Have a nice day.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution
evidence that homo sapiens evolved from africa

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Boom, bjk proves the point of mythology and tales around the campfire perfectly. They are yarns that "improve" with telling and therfore get stretched for the next telling and so on. Based in truth, yes, probably for some - but who is able to tell what is truth and what is exaggeration?

Put my money on science for what my progenity should rely on for fact and it doesn't hurt to read mythology for fun.

brianjakub wrote:

Quote:
What amazes me most is the simple fact that the bible is full of errors, omissions and contradictions, but they seem to ignore those in the belief that a) god created this universe, b) god gave his only begotten son for our sins, c) god is love, and d) we can spend eternity in heaven if we believe in the savior.
You seem to be one of the more confident people posting that your beliefs in evolution are correct. I would also suspect that you have a much greater vocabulary than most of the people telling the story of Genesis which, began as an oral traditional told for generations, before being written down. Could you give me your version of the big bang or evolution that you would pass down to your adult children orally. Remember, you can't look anything up, and you can't refer to any written sources. (not even farmer) Now, after not reading a line from anything for 20 years, (except maybe talking to farmer) who (to make this a legitimate test wouldn't be allowed to read anything for 20 years either) do it again. So, are you willing to at least try the first draft?

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

No, they are not reporting on "the findings of the folks [sic] you [meaning me] presumably believe." That's a straw man fallacy, another important arrow in your pathetic quiver. They are producing distortions, which is the only reason that the Discovery Institute will publish their drek on-line, and the only reason you will read it. Go bother god some more, you pompous jackass.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Is the article "Replaying Evolutin" in the May - June issue of American Scientist the one you wanted me to read? If it is I would like to comment on it.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

That last post was for Farmer.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

When you post a link, could you comment in a few sentences, on a point (maybe even a quote) the link makes to prove your point. I would like to discuss it with you. Remember, I believe in biologicalevolution. I don't believe it can be happen with random mutations being the primary source for the new information that natural selection has to chose from. I am an evolutionist.

0 Replies

back again.
About 4 years ago I challenged a couple of the ID types to follow thhe reasoning in which something like "Convergent Evolution" was an area that , with enough spin, could be part of the ID movement.Well, it seems that this issue is the hot button of the year as Ive read in one of the Journals. (apparently there a new text out in which the genetic components of convergence have been detailed).
Convergence is, BTW, the attainment of similar evolved body plans within totally unrelated species whove adapted , by selection, to the same environment. (Like saber-toothness in shrews, cats, marsupials, , or a very similar body shape to cut through water by large framed mammals,(dolphin and toothed whales), fish (sharks and tuna) and reptiles (Mosasaurs).

Im still waiting for the ID crowd to finlly take this one up because science seems to be focusing on places where darwin was incorrect.(I may hve to return my membership card to the anti Punctuated Equilibrium club)

Brian--the fact tht you dont "believe" that mutation provides enough of the "feedstock" from which natural election may choose, is really your problem to work out(you seem to want to ignore the mathematical potential for such lethal ,neutral, or preferred sources of genetic variability that can pop up minute by minute within a species). You could develop and then, by using data available on say, a planarian,to come up with your own kind of"Anti- Drake Equation" by considering something like the number of individuals in a species X the size of an individuals genome .

Leadfoot--you seem to want to ignore that fact that the very article you poted ws by folks of the Discovery Institute. Fresco brought it to your attention then Ros, (I merely said that fresco bet me to it). Set was speaking fact and you re the one IMHO who is hiding behind a bad temper.
The article discounts nothing its a throwaway, a SOWHAT?. It refutes nothing that has been said herein .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

This is the real mystery for me. Why are intelligent people so resistent to seeing something from alternative points of view? They often can't hear even the un controversial things from the other side.

I was not denying that the article was by the Discovery Institute. I said that the facts and findings presented in the article were from the same scientific sources that you and others here presumably respect.

Do you understand that last statement?

Do you disagree with it?

The criticisms of it by you, set, et al, amount to ad hominem - 1. An argument or reaction directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Why are intelligent people so resistent to seeing something from alternative points of view? They often can't hear even the un controversial things from the other side

Perhaps you should be looking in a mirror. Ive "gone through the tunnel of belief" as prescribed by my fmily's religions (Judaism, Russin Orthodoxy, and RCC), and come out the other side after benefit of many yars of evidence and xperience. While you seem positive nd committed to your "belief", its pretty much arrived at piecemel and without much benefit of diciplined study.
Ive been in the evo/devo business for about 40 yers and each yqr the theory gets more strongly evidenced.
Total denial by guys like gunga are, to me, a subject of incredulity.

Nothing that I use in my daily work has been refuted (unlike several of the tenets of ID).
Lately the issue of "speeded up" evolution has been proposed by several workers and they will probably be presenting their data and studies at upcoming conferences (Like the issue of tetrapods in the erly Devonian)

What has ID done equivalent to observable and testable science??
(I bet you know the answer)

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I said that the facts and findings presented in the article were from the same scientific sources that you and others here presumably respect

As a number of us said,"Nothing earth shaking therein". The articles that receeded the IDers "slant" were presented everyhere from " Ancient Origins", "Geology" "PaleoAnthropology Journal" and even the"National Geographic". A multi focused point of origin for H (sp) has been theorized from South frica to the LEvant.
This thinking was an originalit wy of thinking about WHERE humans volved. Raymond dart, in early 1920's had posed the concept of an "out of ALL of Africa" hypotheses based upon the finding of a human-like ape fossil called the Taungs Baby.
Guys like Leakey and Johannsen and some others had turned the Oldaway (olduvai) Gorges as the cradle of humanity back to the mid Tertiary.
Seems were merely revisiting locales and fossil assemblages. (You seem to me to be wishing that its more earth shaking and supportive of your worldview).

1 Reply

@farmerman,

goin fishing for a day and a hallf a mile. Ill be back probably Thursday or Friday> (Storm tossed waters are really good for tuna)

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

In fact, I am more than happy to attack you, but as for the drek you posted from a Discovery Institute source, I didn't attack the author of the piece or the Discovery Institute, I just pointed out the slant in the article. So there was no argumentum ad hominem in my post. There is no need for me to go into detail, because FM has already done that thoroughly.

This is not the first time that you've attempted to use that phony "evolution news" as a source for your idiotic ID position. You richly deserve the opprobrium you get.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

ps, where did the concept of evolution as a purely stochastic process get legs here?

What is the difference between stochastic and random?

New information as complexity can initially be presented to a system in only two ways. Some body thinks of it, or a random event introduces the new information. If there is some sort of structure in place to direct how that information is used or "stored" in matter (natural selection), the information stored in that structure had to be initiated using one of those two information initiators.

I thought you are arguing that it is purely stochastic and I was arguing for intelligence as a second option. What is the the other options that are available for consideration? Is there a hybrid version of a stochastic process?

Was that article entitled "Replaying Evolution" in May June issue of American Scientist the one you were referring to earlier.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

What is the difference between stochastic and random?

Quote:

I was arguing for intelligence as a second option.

There is no "argument" for intelligence. Nature is the intelligence. There are no gods. It's all in the process of the environment, and the evolution within it. Scientists try to explain how life has evolved through time.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know