evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by I See You
Lets say that you had no insight on god/religion. You were never taught by your parents, a preacher , through school or through a book about there being a god or religion. Would you still beleive in creationism or a god for that matter? What other hard evidence would you have if you eliminated all that was drilled into your head from youth about creationism?

Irrelevant. Lets say that you had no education on evolution. You were never taught by your parents, a teacher, through school or through a book about there being evolution. Would you still believe in evolution? What other hard evidence would you have if you eliminated all that was drilled into your head from youth about evolution?


Actually my head was drilled from youth to believe in religion and god. Scientific evidence and factual proof changed this. Not so irrelevant now.



[edit on 2-8-2007 by I See You]

www.sciencedaily.com...

This is a link to show how unaccepting Americans are of The Theory of Evolution. America is 2nd bottom, with only 40% accepting evolution. The only country lower is Turkey.

The fact that America is very much a Bible bashing God-Land, these figures are not surprising. Pretty much showing that your environment does shape you in to what you will eventually believe. Again, it probably wouldn't surprise anyone here to know saint4god is from America. Bit of a coincidence to his anti-evolution stance, and refusal to acknowledge evidence?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
www.sciencedaily.com...

This is a link to show how unaccepting Americans are of The Theory of Evolution. America is 2nd bottom, with only 40% accepting evolution. The only country lower is Turkey.

Truth isn't up for a vote. Sorry.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
The fact that America is very much a Bible bashing God-Land, these figures are not surprising. Pretty much showing that your environment does shape you in to what you will eventually believe.

As stated before, I was not raised Christian. Topically irrelevant.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Again, it probably wouldn't surprise anyone here to know saint4god is from America.

Doubly-irrelevant. The topic is requesting evidence for evolution which has yet to be provided.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Bit of a coincidence to his anti-evolution stance, and refusal to acknowledge evidence?

What evidence? Will be watching the tread just in case someone decides to post some and will address at that time.

Originally posted by saint4God
What evidence? Will be watching the tread just in case someone decides to post some and will address at that time.

There's lots S4G. You're just too blind to see it, and I have better things to do than go in circles with you explaining why very basic concepts like Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium are not a barrier to real-world evolution.

If you're really up for a discussion with scientists, apparently like you (rofl), then try here:

www.antievolution.org...

Paul Nelson from the discovery institute has been making an appearance recently, defending the new ID 'textbook'. I'm sure Wesley Elsberry et al. will make your stay welcoming if you bothered.

I'll be watching with bated breath. Could be quite entertaining...

[edit on 15-8-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by saint4God
As stated before, I was not raised Christian. Topically irrelevant.

Nevertheless something led you on the path to becoming Christian, this path was shaped by your environment, either experiences as a child or an adult. Topically EXTREMELY relavent. Percentage-wise as an American and a Christian, says you're more likely to refuse evolution theory whether there's evidence or not.

Originally posted by saint4God
Doubly-irrelevant. The topic is requesting evidence for evolution which has yet to be provided.

It's been provided. I can't 'make' you believe evolution. Your stance is set so you are unable to be open to the possibility of evolution, that's where the problem lies.

There's no 'proof' that creation happened the way it is described in The Bible, there's no 'proof' that evolution is correct, there is however for evolution a hell of a lot of supporting evidence, and it's this supporting evidence that leads us to believe evolution is a natural occuring process. The only supporting evidence for creation is in The Bible, sadly though this does not equate to very much sufficiant supporting evidence.

[edit on 15-8-2007 by shaunybaby]

Originally posted by melatonin
There's lots S4G. You're just too blind to see it,

If I did not address the information posted then perhaps I could see your perspective. But, I have addressed and that which I have has gone unaddressed. This is the problem. Claiming someone is blind is both inaccurate and adds no credibility to your half of the argument.

Originally posted by melatonin
and I have better things to do than go in circles with you explaining why very basic concepts like Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium are not a barrier to real-world evolution.

This was one factor (as an real-world principle). The other three that have gone unaddressed are The Scientific Method, phenotypic barriers, and gametic barries.

Originally posted by melatonin
If you're really up for a discussion with scientists, apparently like you (rofl),

I'm a Protein Expression Specialist that works with NIAD, DuPont and Bioserve. Sorry if you think that's funny. The benefits however go into vaccines and research for influenza, herpes, etc. I'm grateful to have the opportunity to be a part of it.

Originally posted by melatonin
then try here:

www.antievolution.org...

Looks like a creditial slap-fight but seems to have some interesting points. I don't care about what degree at what university, just glad I can now discount the claim that I haven't a university degree in biology.

Originally posted by melatonin
Paul Nelson from the discovery institute has been making an appearance recently, defending the new ID 'textbook'. I'm sure Wesley Elsberry et al. will make your stay welcoming if you bothered.

I'll be watching with bated breath. Could be quite entertaining...

Probably not, there's no new information so the subjective arguments are getting boring. New discoveries and validation is what is interesting in my opinion.


[edit on 15-8-2007 by saint4God]

Let's take a simple approach to the problem. The problem is: you don't think that evolution shows new species can evolve. I think it's safe to say that we're agreed that there are variations within the same species. However, as for new species evolving from a species that previously didn't exist, you saint, believe there is no evidence for.

100 million years ago - a vast number of species roamed this planet, many not being around today, however a few still are, crocodiles and sharks for example are both decendants of the dinosaurs. Humans were not a species that co-existed with the dinosaurs.

There is a vast amount of supporting evidence to suggest this is historically accurate. However, I think last time I brought this up you said I had 'assumed too much'.

Today - humans are a species that very much so dominate our planet.

What we have is atleast one species that is here today, that was not here 100 million years ago. This is supporting evidence to show that a new species can evolve, even if that specific species had not previously existed. This is evidence, saint. Whether you look at this evidence and dismiss it, that is up to your personal outlook and opinion.

Originally posted by saint4God
I don't care about what degree at what university, just glad I can now discount the claim that I haven't a university degree in biology.

Aye, I've seen you wielding it like the sword of truth.

Problem is, degrees essentially don't count for much it's just arguing from authority. I have no degree in biology, but know that Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is not a barrier to evolution. Whereas, someone with a degree in biology thought otherwise...

But, yeah, it's probably better you don't wield your sword in areas like the AtBC subforum. They do enjoy eviscerating poor arguments, the last one was some poor dude who liked wielding his degrees in maths and physics, whilst arguing for a 6000 year earth and Dembski-like information barriers. He seems to have retreated back to his blog now. Oh well, fun while it lasted.

Originally posted by Slicky1313
I disagree, in evolution, it IS acceptable to kill the weaker. we are just animals that are more complex. nuthin wrong with a lion in Africa killing a gazelle, no matter what the Lion wants to kill it for, just as that, in evolution it would be ok to kill the weaker species of a human. Darwin's own words, of how he was weak, therefore he must die. now that doesnt mean u should go around killing everyone weaker than you, but it would be ok to kill a person in evolution cause their weaker. well, not in Christianity is it ok to kill someone without a good cause, such as death penalty.

The problem here, and please correct me if im wrong, i didnt bother reading all you had to say on the mathmatical laws of the universe, but you are confusing your OPINIONS with actual fact and observation.

We are biologically similar to most other life forms on this planet. On a mental level we are far more advance than the majority of life on this planet.

Evolution is not a linear experience, for example. The design of the shark although varied in terms of species, has not changed in roughly 400million years. Why? because if "it isnt broke dont fix it". The design works for the purpose that is needed.

We are not the most common organism on this planet, bacteria are, so if you apply your maths to that world then you might find that evolution happens at an alarming rate. Look at this snipet.

Bacteria usually reproduce by simply dividing in two. Each new bacterium is a clone of the original—they each contain a copy of the same DNA. This is called binary fission (bye-nair-ee fish-un). If conditions are just right, one bacterium could become a BILLION (1,000,000,000) bacteria in just 10 hours through binary fission!

Not to attack you personally, but just cause you don't understand doesn't make it untrue or tangable. IMO stick to the things that you do know and be the expert in that. If you continue to doubt everything you start to believe a really old book that a bunch of people wrote while high on opium in the middle east, really though would you listen to any of them now?

Peace - sorry if i repeated any comments already made.

evidence in my post

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Pigeons evolved in the 1800's, and are now dominate in cities

Blck moths evolved and went extinct

My front yard tree has turned into a new species that I call the Gorm Tree.

Evolution is happening right in my own front yard.

Originally posted by Motion-Man
I'm sorry if you don't want to hear about how the Big Bang is false. And I'll stop posting about it. But you must see how the Big Bang and evolution are connected. It's all evolution, Evolution of the Universe. The Big Bang supposedly happened first, right? So if that is false, then the rest of the theory must be scrapped.

Galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is 'Hubble's Law'. This supports universe expansion and supports that the universe was once compacted.

If the universe was initially very hot (15 billion degrees) to make the first elements, then we should still be able to find remnants of this heat. And we do, it's called Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. It's the static on your radio and TVs.

Another piece of evidence lies in the abundance of certain elements. Big Bang Theory suggests that certain elements should be abundant, and certain elements should be rare. Observations have shown almost exactly the amounts predicted.

So to come out with such nonsense as 'I know you don't want to hear the big bang is false', is just ridiculous. There's plenty of supporting evidence. Just thought I'd have a go at educating you here because you seem ignorant on the subject.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is 'Hubble's Law'. This supports universe expansion and supports that the universe was once compacted.

Which depends on your interpretation. There isn't conclusive proof that redshift is due to the objects moving away from us. Hubble himself disagreed with that explanation.

If the universe was initially very hot (15 billion degrees) to make the first elements, then we should still be able to find remnants of this heat. And we do, it's called Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.

But can't the CMB also be explained by the backround heat resulting from the ambient heat generated by galaxies/stars etc?

Evolution exists. What is in question is the mechanism in which it works. These theories consist of gene flow, natural selection, adaptation, genetic drift, etc.

Please read a few books before posting threads like this.

Originally posted by DarkSide
Which depends on your interpretation. There isn't conclusive proof that redshift is due to the objects moving away from us. Hubble himself disagreed with that explanation.

I didn't say it was conclusive proof. It is however supporting evidence. And along with other pieces of supporting evidence, it points in the direction of Big Bang Theory.

Originally posted by DarkSide
But can't the CMB also be explained by the backround heat resulting from the ambient heat generated by galaxies/stars etc?

Before CMB was found, it was predicted in 1948, but there was no evidence for such. It was in the 60s when it was accidentally stumbled across. The temperature of such radiation was also calculated and estimated, varying from 50 K (assuming a 3 billion year old universe) down to much lower estimates, which would show a much older universe, as the radiation is ever cooling as the universe expands. The measured temperature of this radiation is about 2.7 K, which suggests a very much so old universe of around 14 billion years. As this measured temperature is ever cooling, it's very unlikely it is from ambient regular temperatures given off by stars.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
I didn't say it was conclusive proof. It is however supporting evidence. And along with other pieces of supporting evidence, it points in the direction of Big Bang Theory.

Only if the redshift is due to velocity.

As this measured temperature is ever cooling, it's very unlikely it is from ambient regular temperatures given off by stars.

How was it shown to be "cooling"?

Cosmological theories based on the Big Bang unambiguously predict that the temperature of the universe will fall with time as the universe expands. Recent observations from the new Keck telescope have provided the first direct evidence that the CMBR temperature has indeed decreased over (relatively recent) cosmic time. Using the light from a distant, bright, quasi-stellar source, astronomers were able to measure the temperature of carbon atoms in an intergalactic cloud between Earth and the source.

Quote taken from: www.nap.edu...

It was only when the universe began to cool, as it expanded, that galaxies, stars and planets formed.


The more distant galaxies exhibit larger redshifts, they're also moving away from us proportional to their distance, hence velocity is higher than that of a galaxy that is closer, as these exhibit smaller redshifts, again moving away from us proportional to their distance, hence velocity is lower. There's a clear relationship between velocity and redshift.

All the evidence I need for evolution:

We certainly have creatures that existed 50 million years ago that do not exist now.

We also have creatures that exist now that did not exist 50 million years ago.

What happened to the old creatures? And why do we not have a fossil record of a pigeon or a house cat in 50 million year old bedrock?

I guess it's just another ploy by satan to pull us away from faith in god. Just like Gravity and the light in the refrigerator.

It's funny how people refuse to simply see the obvious. My own front yard has evolution happening. My Christmas tree mutated and is now passing those mutant genes to the next gen. Not only that but they don't mate, so it's a direct clone and a directly new species.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
The more distant galaxies exhibit larger redshifts, they're also moving away from us proportional to their distance, hence velocity is higher than that of a galaxy that is closer, as these exhibit smaller redshifts, again moving away from us proportional to their distance, hence velocity is lower. There's a clear relationship between velocity and redshift.

But isn't their velocity calculated from the redshift in the first place?

Originally posted by DarkSide
But isn't their velocity calculated from the redshift in the first place?

As far as I know, yes. What point are you trying to make? It's like you're just making up questions for the sake of it.