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

So you are saying they got published in "Science" because they saw one short-legged lizard?

0 Replies

I didn't see anyone say that.

Who are you refering to and where did they say that?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

How many generations of lizards are included in this 12 month study?

Probably very few.

What apparently happened is that both longer legged (relatively speaking) and shorter legged lizards of the same species (image that. Just as there are both tall humans and short humans living now!) were living at the same time on the islands.

At least those poor buggers went to the island - your disproof is you talking out your hat (intentional euphemism).

Like I said before I wasn't offering this as proof - because your religious convictions mean you won't concede it.

However I would like you to address my main point that your chief objection to evolution is because you think it has religious repercussions, not scientific ones.

I will allow a distinction between natural selection and evolution but I think the evidence indicates that natural selection is a major force for evolution.

I am curious though - you seem to be saying that natural selection doesn't cause evolution - does that mean you concede evolution does happen?

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Was just wondering:

Who invented evolution? :wink:

The same person that invented gravity and pi, and entropy. Wait, those were discovered!

0 Replies

How about a break. Quite frankly, the idea of several people defending evolution is rediculous to me. I'd like to see creationist or intellegent (lol) design believers to state their evidence so that the evolution croud can now be critical of what they have to say.

I hear a lot of talk for creationists, but I see no willingness to provide anything uof use to anyone else. I'd love to hear about how the earth could scientifically be made in seven days or how all genetics traits; all species began at the same point in time and god just started the race. I'd love to hear it, so much so that I'm pretty much demanding to hear nothing else but it.

Here's your chance. Sell me on any other theory other than evolution. The burden is on you.

Fundamentalists that claim to have the answers aren't lying, they have all the WRONG answers. They hold the ability for so many of their followers to get the TRUE answers and so in truth they hold all the cards, dig. RL, I often feel sorry for you because you are enslaved to believe what you are told to.

Just remember that the Vatican never said the world was round until 1992, this from the same group that would burn heretics that claimed the same centuries ago. What would happen if tomorrow, if your church admitted that the proof of evolution was simply too much? would you continue to fight so hard? I bet you'd be scared. Religion wrote a check it could never cash when it CHOOSE how it would create the world. Hwo long do you think it will take before there is just TOO much evidence? again, I feel bad for you.

Screw biological evolution, social evolution my comrade, and in survival of the fittest between me and you, you searching for grubs under a rock while I'm building tools and shelter.

You're free to come in out of the rain anytime.

0 Replies

Pauligirls contribution demonstrates the additional "intermediate" fossil information that we are gradually being presented. The Berriasian through the Albian times of the Lower K were a time of speciation and (135 to about 95 mya) spread of flowering plants. Although the Angiosperms appeared first in the Norian stage of the late Triassic(210 mya), their spread was contingent upon an effective pollinating mechanism. The rise of pollinating insects coincides nicely with the rapid spread of angiosperms.. The fact that we have lake and back by bottom sediments that are covered with Cretaceous pollen grains has led to palynology as an important environmnetal discipline(and an important exploration tool) . and it allows the stratigraphy to be cross correlated with yet another means of independent evidence.

The data just keeps rolling in, and when it amounts to a small mountain of robust interlocking information, there are some of us still comfortable with heads in the sand , ears closed, and screaming "No, NO, this is not real, its open to other interpretations"

Weve politely asked for those other interpretations, but , as evidence piles up, its going to be damned difficult to extract some meaningful Creationist interpretations out of interlocked evidence that all seems to heavily support an old world, with gradual appearances of life forms through time.

Ill bet, however, that , at least the Creationist interpretations will be entertaining and full of wishful thinking.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
Was just wondering:

Who invented evolution? :wink:

The same person that invented gravity and pi, and entropy. Wait, those were discovered!

Discover(ed): "to obtain sight or knowledge of for the first time"

As the definition of your term (discovered) scientifically infers prior existence - who invented gravity, pi, entropy and evolution?

0 Replies

so if evolution is true... where did the original DNA come from?

who/what started this process and how?

are there not signs of order in the amount of difference between parents and offspring? if they were identical, no evolution. if too much change took place, no evolution.

in the case of the big bang, if everything was compressed into that one spec of matter, so what, that's not the beginning, where did that spec come from?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

How about a break. Quite frankly, the idea of several people defending evolution is rediculous to me. I'd like to see creationist or intellegent (lol) design believers to state their evidence so that the evolution croud can now be critical of what they have to say.

I hear a lot of talk for creationists, but I see no willingness to provide anything uof use to anyone else. I'd love to hear about how the earth could scientifically be made in seven days or how all genetics traits; all species began at the same point in time and god just started the race. I'd love to hear it, so much so that I'm pretty much demanding to hear nothing else but it.

Here's your chance. Sell me on any other theory other than evolution. The burden is on you. ...

Well, the answers you'll get are the same as usual:

How? *Poof*
Why? Just because.

Science and faith are not very compatible, and that's why we're still debating evolution even in the 21st century...

They believe in creationism because it goes hand-in-hand with their religious beliefs - as it has already been mentioned in this thread, not because it makes any sense.
How could it make sense to pick the following:

1. An invisible man created the universe and all living beings
(I need to mention... with NO evidence whatsoever)

OVER

Evolution evidence:
1. Obvious bacteria/virus mutations
2. Fossil remains that show links (evolution) between different types of species living today.
3. Similar species living today, making it obvious that they evolved from one another.
4. Dug up evidence of human ancestors (such as Neanderthals, who are very similar to us)
5. (slightly off topic) Big bang theory, which has ROCK SOLID evidence of galaxies moving away from each other, where the conclusion has to be that they originated from one and the same point in space billions of years ago. (NOT created by God thousands of years ago)

The best we've got is Evolution, period. This whole thing is clearly a matter of blind faith.
Faith certainly had some positive impacts on society, but it's very detrimental to progress in general.

0 Replies

Real life, I'm curious:

Even though you think that Evolution has several holes, do you think it's at least the best we've got at this point?

0 Replies

rockpie wrote:

so if evolution is true... where did the original DNA come from?

who/what started this process and how?

are there not signs of order in the amount of difference between parents and offspring? if they were identical, no evolution. if too much change took place, no evolution.

in the case of the big bang, if everything was compressed into that one spec of matter, so what, that's not the beginning, where did that spec come from?

Rockpie, yes, those are all very intriguing and difficult questions.
However, saying that God is involved in all this explains absolutely nothing. It only creates even more questions, what's the context of God? Who/what created god?

0 Replies

We've reached the degeneration point of, "prove creation by God."

HIV is just as adaptable as Bird Flu.
HIV is still HIV and Bird Flu is still Bird Flu.

Who gives a crap if a different kind of bee or wasp is found. They can even call it a bwasp. There is no 'Empirical Data' that shows it became todays bees and wasps.

99% of every kind of life is now extinct. Every year a few more go extinct, and nothing new has emerged.

Theory: Either God, gods, aliens or ancient earthlings having superior cellular and DNA knowledge, created some life that we currently no nothing about.
Prediction: We will soon find fossil remains of a life form that was previously unknown.
Conclusion: If this prediction materializes repeatedly we will have empirical proof that my theory is right.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
Was just wondering:

Who invented evolution? :wink:

The same person that invented gravity and pi, and entropy. Wait, those were discovered!

Discover(ed): "to obtain sight or knowledge of for the first time"

As the definition of your term (discovered) scientifically infers prior existence - who invented gravity, pi, entropy and evolution?

The point is that truth is not created but discovered. Creationism is by no intended pun created. 1+1=2 even before it was discovered, the earth orbited the sun before it was discovered. The famous n-body newtonian problem has an answer even now, but will never be solved. Truth exists beyond what we are shown or what we can readily comprehend.

Creationists demand a display of evolution, and if it isn't provided, then they say: "See I told you so... har har." But the same can be said for creation, show me creation.

Do you know how most viruses come to be? As in new viruses, not a new strain of an existing one. A human virus for instance is a mutation specifically derived from our own DNA! Quite leterally, a new entity spawned from a original.

A virus such as the bird flu originates a a mutation of avian DNA, as an independant organism with it's own genome, it's success as a lifeform is measured in it's ability to adapt. So is it any surprive that the Bird Flu has adapted to attack human celluar structures? the genetic difference between any bird and a human is significant enough to prove that a completely different (new, never before seen) form of life is now present.

Hence by EVOLUTION, a mutation in the species. Most liekly the parent viruses that do not adapt the new mutation will not achieve the same success as the adopted viruses (now I'm talking about natural selection) and therefore the newly adopted virus will cultivate faster and grow in population and the old strain of DNA will become less and less.

Evolution for you to see and experiance all around you.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
Was just wondering:

Who invented evolution? :wink:

The same person that invented gravity and pi, and entropy. Wait, those were discovered!

Discover(ed): "to obtain sight or knowledge of for the first time"

As the definition of your term (discovered) scientifically infers prior existence - who invented gravity, pi, entropy and evolution?

The point is that truth is not created but discovered. Creationism is by no intended pun created. 1+1=2 even before it was discovered, the earth orbited the sun before it was discovered. The famous n-body newtonian problem has an answer even now, but will never be solved. Truth exists beyond what we are shown or what we can readily comprehend.

Creationists demand a display of evolution, and if it isn't provided, then they say: "See I told you so... har har." But the same can be said for creation, show me creation.

Do you know how most viruses come to be? As in new viruses, not a new strain of an existing one. A human virus for instance is a mutation specifically derived from our own DNA! Quite leterally, a new entity spawned from a original.

A virus such as the bird flu originates a a mutation of avian DNA, as an independant organism with it's own genome, it's success as a lifeform is measured in it's ability to adapt. So is it any surprive that the Bird Flu has adapted to attack human celluar structures? the genetic difference between any bird and a human is significant enough to prove that a completely different (new, never before seen) form of life is now present.

Hence by EVOLUTION, a mutation in the species. Most liekly the parent viruses that do not adapt the new mutation will not achieve the same success as the adopted viruses (now I'm talking about natural selection) and therefore the newly adopted virus will cultivate faster and grow in population and the old strain of DNA will become less and less.

Evolution for you to see and experiance all around you.

OK - but you still haven't answered my question! Who invented evolution?

And of particular interest is your paragraph shown here:

Quote:

"The point is that truth is not created but discovered. Creationism is by no intended pun created. 1+1=2 even before it was discovered, the earth orbited the sun before it was discovered. The famous n-body newtonian problem has an answer even now, but will never be solved. Truth exists beyond what we are shown or what we can readily comprehend".

The sentence shown in bold is the very rack that believers hang their hat on! :wink:

0 Replies

Still no alternative theory from you guys then?

Chiso has been the most honest I've seen yet, in that at least he/she doesn't jump instantly to the conlclusion that if the theory of evolution has holes, then "insert your specific creation myth" is the only possible alternative.

0 Replies

How funny.

The title of the thread is basically 'don't you dare criticize evolution ( because it's a settled fact) '.

When someone starts to criticize evolution, then all the evolutionists want to change the subject!

0 Replies

Fair point, real life.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

How funny.

The title of the thread is basically 'don't you dare criticize evolution ( because it's a settled fact) '.

When someone starts to criticize evolution, then all the evolutionists want to change the subject!

INCORRECT IN ALL WAYS.

The title of this thread addresses the Creationists who claims that there is NO evidence of evolution.

Evolutionists aren't changing the subject, their simply saying that if you reject the evidence of evolution you;d better be ready to bring some of your evidence. Even if you disprove evolution, the answer doesn't defalt to creationism any quicker than it defaults to us being cloned by aliens or born from seeds floating through space, or any other BS idea of how we came to be.

Evolutionist strategy: Provide facts; evidence. Continue to investigate all theories.

Creationist strategy: Try and default evolutioinist facts and evidence to be cicumstancial. Provide NO secular evidence. Avoid all contrary investigation. Remind youself, to the best of your ability, that you don't need to be convinced of anything outside of your own beliefs. Rinse. Repeat.

0 Replies

Diest,

I agree with your general conclusions. The problem was that the word "proof" appeared in the title, not "evidence". Analysis of the difference between these words points to the futility of most of the so-called "debates" between science and religion.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Diest,

I agree with your general conclusions. The problem was that the word "proof" appeared in the title, not "evidence". Analysis of the difference between these words points to the futility of most of the so-called "debates" between science and religion.

So if all this resolves to is a word game, then at the end, the deciding blow on creation or evolution is a simple definition!

I object outright!

I'm not mad at you. You're right, the problem is in the words. All I know is in the metiphical supermarket of all things conceptual, if I had to choose between "proof" and "evidence," I'd simply check the price tag as neither has a greater quality to me. I'd certainly not buy any "belief" or "faith" over either though, and that's the main point of arguement.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know