Evolution is a farce: Evidence

a reply to: borntowatch

Neighbor I as you deny trolling, I am thus going to have to assume you are just bad at this whole science thing. Evolutionary theories do not "pop up like mushrooms". The theory really last underwent major rework when we discovered how the information that drove the mechanism called evolution. Its been refined as we understand that even more. Genetic sequencing has helped immensely. We can apply quantitative as well as qualitative methods now.

But all this is besides the point. You are either unwilling or unable to grasp these ideas. Perhaps its belligerence on your part? Perhaps its fear? But you've clearly not grasped anything.

This is amply demonstrated when you try to pretend to know what Chemistry is about. First you ask me if I "cook" then you say it is "just mixing solutions". Well clearly you get you chemistry education from Breaking Bad, rather than Myth Busters, or a text book. IF Chemistry is "just mixing solutions". Then Biochemistry is "just growing a culture", Physics is "just calculating the trajectory" and so on.

So forgive me if I doubt your ability and your sincerity. I am however yet to be convinced by your qualifications to judge the validity of the science involved in evolutionary theory. You don't need a degree in it to understand it, there are plenty of popular science books, and magazines out there. Its not hard, the alphabet is four letters long, and we know the code for each amino acid in a protein. Now if it was epigenetics we were discussing I could understand your problems, but its not. Its very simple genetics, much of it involves snps

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: borntowatch

Neighbor I as you deny trolling, I am thus going to have to assume you are just bad at this whole science thing. Evolutionary theories do not "pop up like mushrooms". The theory really last underwent major rework when we discovered how the information that drove the mechanism called evolution. Its been refined as we understand that even more. Genetic sequencing has helped immensely. We can apply quantitative as well as qualitative methods now.

But all this is besides the point. You are either unwilling or unable to grasp these ideas. Perhaps its belligerence on your part? Perhaps its fear? But you've clearly not grasped anything.

This is amply demonstrated when you try to pretend to know what Chemistry is about. First you ask me if I "cook" then you say it is "just mixing solutions". Well clearly you get you chemistry education from Breaking Bad, rather than Myth Busters, or a text book. IF Chemistry is "just mixing solutions". Then Biochemistry is "just growing a culture", Physics is "just calculating the trajectory" and so on.

So forgive me if I doubt your ability and your sincerity. I am however yet to be convinced by your qualifications to judge the validity of the science involved in evolutionary theory. You don't need a degree in it to understand it, there are plenty of popular science books, and magazines out there. Its not hard, the alphabet is four letters long, and we know the code for each amino acid in a protein. Now if it was epigenetics we were discussing I could understand your problems, but its not. Its very simple genetics, much of it involves snps

You know what separated the Pharisees from the people of Israel in Christs time.

Like you they thought they were above questioning, above all the little people, above having to answer to others.
Yes they were the religious elite, beyond reproach, they were just that, the religious elite.
Christ had no time for them, they used their religious authority to bully and demand and act all pious.
This sounds very much like you.

All you have done is dribble on and offered no evidence, not a drop.
I expect no less from a pious religious types,your credentials are invalid to me, get it.
I want evidence before I am swayed to accepting evolution.

Your title does nothing to impress me. Talk yourself up but you are a bell with no striker.

a reply to: borntowatch

What about fossil evidence of the intermediate animals that existed that bridge reptiles and mammals? According to the phylogenic tree, mammals and reptiles have a common ancestor. In other words, mammals evolved from reptiles. There's a lot of evidence for this, not just some theory somebody in an armchair made up. There are many many fossils that specifically show missing links between reptiles and mammals. Do you deny this? Do you think the fossils are fake? What would be your objection to that? If you'd like me to present the evidence, I will do so. But first I would like to see what your reply to this would be.

originally posted by: kayej1188
a reply to: borntowatch

What about fossil evidence of the intermediate animals that existed that bridge reptiles and mammals? According to the phylogenic tree, mammals and reptiles have a common ancestor. In other words, mammals evolved from reptiles. There's a lot of evidence for this, not just some theory somebody in an armchair made up. There are many many fossils that specifically show missing links between reptiles and mammals. Do you deny this? Do you think the fossils are fake? What would be your objection to that? If you'd like me to present the evidence, I will do so. But first I would like to see what your reply to this would be.

After I debunked the rubbish about Lucy and Toumai being real "missing links", showing them to be nothing more than apes, I find that your "evidence" for common ancestry is nothing more than your interpretations imposed on the evidence at best. This is of course assuming the fossils aren't a hoax like the Piltdown man and a number of other hoaxes perpetrated by Darwinist's. In the minds of an evolutionist, an amphibious like creature is an "intermediary" just because they live both on land and water. As a creationist, I can easily look at this "evidence" of yours and simply see it as an example of the incredible variety in nature, not "common descent". Care to list these 'missing links' for us?

a reply to: BlackManINC

This wikipedia article explains all the research and methodology and the data it has yielded concerning common descent. all you have to do is read it. Check out the bibliography as well. cross examine the findings, test their claims, but don't just dismiss it out of hand.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: borntowatch

So do you question your GP when they say you have an issue? If so, probably good, as they are fallible. However they are still highly trained individuals in their area. Their word should carry more weight (in their specialist area) than a faith healer, or Joe public. Similarly I am trained in the sciences, I am an expert in two areas, one is chemistry the other is Bioinformatics. As such, when someone makes false claims about one of those areas, I can spot that they are false.

You are currently using one of the tactics of the creationist. "Scientists are bullying me". If you are so weak in your argument that logic, and facts become bullying, you best go learn a bit more. Self education is a admirable thing. However the "I feel its wrong because I feel it contradicts the Bible" defense is sadly not one that is admissible. You have yet to illustrate that Evolution is a farce. You have provided no evidence. You indeed have ignored any evidence provided on the other side and made sweeping statements about it, with out addressing any of it.

Thus we return to the fact neighbor, that you are not very good at this, and are exhibiting what can only be described as classical trolling tendencies, or a level of belligerence through ignorance to the subject. Its one or the other. You are either trying to wind us up or you are genuinely poor at arguing against evolution. I base this simply on your arguments.

It does not help you that I am no atheist does it? You can't pull the "evolution is an atheist plot" line with me.

Slan leat, don't let the door hit you neighbor

a reply to: BlackManINC

You actually debunked nothing. The term "missing link" is a non scientific term. It holds zero place in an argument for or against evolution. Those who use it, are showing that they are not very well informed on the subject.

So would you care to try again? You really have shown nothing beyond your hatred for those who hold an education neighbor.

originally posted by: BlackManINC

After I debunked the rubbish about Lucy and Toumai being real "missing links", showing them to be nothing more than apes,

You did absolutely no such thing. And seeing as how the biological sciences classify classify humans as apes, what point are you trying to make? That you don't want to be called an ape but are willing to use the nomenclature if it supports your misrepresented and misunderstood version of the truth? Doesn't look like you've got very rigid, scientific perimeters in place for yourself there. I'm curious how exactly you think you destroyed any notions involving Sahleanthropis when the scientific community had yet to come to any sort of consensus on the classification because there are too few specimens to get a clear picture of. Irregardless, it was never poited as a "missing link" the closest that was to a possible missing link was in the sense that it Might be a common ancestor to both humans and chimpanzee.

I find that your "evidence" for common ancestry is nothing more than your interpretations imposed on the evidence at best.

And what exactly do you have for evidence to support your thesis? Do you have any irrefutable information that will stand up to scrutiny? If you did it would certainly get me to approach the topic differently.

This is of course assuming the fossils aren't a hoax like the Piltdown man and a number of other hoaxes perpetrated by Darwinist's.

Piltdown man was suspected of being a forgery by G.S. Miller right from the get go. Despite the lack of access to the remains which led to the lengthy time frame it took to expose the fraud, it was never considered a "missing link" and did not fit in with anything else discovered in the realm of paleoanthropology. In anthropology, paleontology and paleo anthropology,every living creature is considered a transitional species. You try to give the impression that there were a lot of hoaxes in anthropology and paleo anthropology, are to list them all?

In the minds of an evolutionist, an amphibious like creature is an "intermediary" just because they live both on land and water.

What a crock of dung... Do have a citation to support this claim or is it just your personal impression based in the sheer volume of ignorance you have displayed thought this thread? To be transitional, a specimen does not have to be half way in the middle of two diverging lineages. This shows how your incredulousness leads you down a path of pure ignorance.

As a creationist, I can easily look at this "evidence" of yours and simply see it as an example of the incredible variety in nature, not "common descent". Care to list these 'missing links' for us?

The only people who still go on about "missing links" in this day and age are YEC supporters piltdown was over 100 years ago, its time to let go of it because in science we don't use the term r even postulate on "missing links".

a reply to: BlackManINC

Why do you assume that the intermediary animal is called so because it lived on land and water? This is not the case whatsoever. I will present the evidence, but you have to do me the courtesy of actually reading it and taking the information in. Try to do so with an open mind. I will warn you, it requires actually reading the information and thinking critically; moreover it's actual hard science, and just judging from the conversations here so far, those who are not very familiar or well versed in biological studies may have a tough time grasping the concept. I strongly believe that SO much of why creationists like some on this board are so reluctant to accept evolutionary theory is because it actually requires a pretty substantial understanding of anatomy and physiology. The average person who has not taken a college level course in biology will be completely lost in this. And I fully expect (although I hope that I am wrong) that many people will stop reading after the 2nd paragraph or so, mainly because they are lost. But nonetheless, here we go: NOTE, THERE ARE PICTURES AND CITATIONS THAT GO ALONG WITH THE FOLLOWING THAT CAN BE FOUND HERE, WHICH I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO FOLLOW ALONG WITH: www.talkorigins.org...

ALSO NOTE THAT THIS IS JUST ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE OF THIS TYPE OF ANALYSIS AMONG THOUSANDS OF ADDITIONAL ARCHIVED DATA THAT PRESENTS SIMILAR DATA INVOLVING INTERMEDIATES BETWEEN MANY SPECIES.

Osteologically (bones), there are two major striking differences that exist between reptiles and mammals: (1) All living reptiles have at least four bones in the lower jaw (e.g. the dentary, articular, angular, surangular, and coronoid), while all living mammals have only one (the dentary), and (2) all living reptiles have only one middle ear bone (the stapes), while all living mammals have three (the hammer, anvil, and stapes). As mentioned above, the standard phylogenetic tree indicates that mammals gradually evolved from a reptile-like ancestor, and that transitional species must have existed which were morphologically intermediate between reptiles and mammals.

Developmental biologists discovered something that further complicates the picture. In the reptilian fetus, two developing bones from the head eventually form two bones in the reptilian lower jaw, the quadrate and the articular (Pelycosaur as an example ). Surprisingly, the corresponding developing bones in the mammalian fetus eventually form the anvil and hammer of the unique mammalian middle ear (also known more formally as the incus and malleus, respectively.) These facts strongly indicated that the hammer and anvil had evolved from these reptilian jawbones—that is, if common descent was in fact true. This result was so striking, and the required intermediates so outlandish, that many anatomists had extreme trouble imagining how transitional forms bridging these morphologies could have existed while retaining function.

To sum up, During their evolution, two mammalian middle ear bones (the hammer and anvil, aka malleus and incus) were derived from two reptilian jawbones. Thus there was a major evolutionary transition in which several reptilian jawbones (the quadrate, articular, and angular) were extensively reduced and modified gradually to form the modern mammalian middle ear. At the same time, the dentary bone, a part of the reptilian jaw, was expanded to form the major mammalian lower jawbone. During the course of this change, the bones that form the hinge joint of the jaw changed identity. Importantly, the reptilian jaw joint is formed at the intersection of the quadrate and articular whereas the mammalian jaw joint is formed at the intersection of the squamosal and dentary.

How could hearing and jaw articulation be preserved during this transition? As clearly shown from the many transitional fossils that have been found, the bones that transfer sound in the reptilian and mammalian ear were in contact with each other throughout the evolution of this transition. In reptiles, the stapes contacts the quadrate, which in turn contacts the articular. In mammals, the stapes contacts the incus, which in turn contacts the malleus. Since the quadrate evolved into the incus, and the articular evolved into the malleus, these three bones were in constant contact during this impressive evolutionary change. Furthermore, a functional jaw joint was maintained by redundancy—several of the intermediate fossils have both a reptilian jaw joint (from the quadrate and articular) and a mammalian jaw joint (from the dentary and squamosal). Several late cynodonts and morganucodon clearly have a double-jointed jaw. In this way, the reptilian-style jaw joint was freed to evolve a new specialized function in the middle ear. It is worthy of note that some modern species of snakes have a double-jointed jaw involving different bones, so such a mechanical arrangement is certainly possible and functional.

Since these discoveries were made, several important intermediate fossils have been discovered that fit between Morganucodon and the earliest mammals. These new discoveries include a complete skull of Hadrocodium wui (Luo et al. 2001) and cranial and jaw material from Repenomamus and Gobiconodon (Wang et al. 2001). These new fossil finds clarify exactly when and how the malleus, incus, and angular completely detached from the lower jaw and became solely auditory ear ossicles. The relevant transition, then, is a process where the ear bones, initially located in the lower jaw, become specialized in function by eventually detaching from the lower jaw and moving closer to the inner ear. WE HAVE SKULLS THAT BEAUTIFULLY DISPLAY THIS TRANSITION STEP BY STEP, BEGINNING FROM EARLY REPTILES ALL THE WAY TO EARLY MAMMALS.

a reply to: BlackManINC

Hi, BlackManINC. It's over two days since you wrote the post I'm replying to here. I've addressed you twice since then, but although you've been back on the thread at least twice yourself, you haven't answered me.

I asked you some questions with respect to your post (referenced above) in an attempt to get you to clarify your position. Here are the questions again, for the third time.

Do you think life comes in different 'kinds'? That animals are a different 'kind' of life from plants? That humans are a different 'kind' of life from animals? Would you care to explain what the difference is?

And while we're on the subject, would you care to explain the difference between animate and inanimate matter? This is something I have never been able to understand. It seems obvious at first, but on closer inspection none of the attributes that seem to create a distinction between life and dead matter are actually unique to one or the other. Very disturbing.

You haven't yet replied these questions. I'm sure you've read them. I'm sure you also read this:

If you don't believe there are any differences, don't bother to reply and I will know what to think.

Am I then to think that you don't believe there are any differences between life and nonlife, between plants and animals, between animals and humans?

If that is the case, you are a well-credentialled scientific materialist, as well as a believer in abiogenesis and evolution. This seems a little odd to me, though. I cannot reconcile it with the views you have expressed on this thread, such as your indignant denial that humans (at least, your line of humanity) are a species of ape.

You have claimed many times that abiogenesis and evolution are unscientific concepts, which presumes you have the scientific knowledge and insight to make such a claim. How could this be? As someone else asked, where is your theory?

Of course, another possibility is that you do not answer me because you have no answer, or no answer you have courage enough to offer. That you have, in fact, no actual theory or hypothesis to put in place of the conventional narrative of abiogenesis and evolution. That you have no answer to the question of why 'microevolution' cannot become 'macroevolution' — that successive small changes can add up to huge ones. That your claimed scientific expertise is bogus: nothing but a typical creationist lie.

That would be a great disappointment. All this bluster and nothing to back it but Bible stories? Oh, dear. That would invalidate every assertion you have made on this thread, do you realize that? It would turn you into just another naked emperor, like all the other 'intelligent design' proponents and 'scientific creationists'. Is that the real truth about you?

Come now, I'm sure you can do better than that.

I've given you two chances already to redeem you credibility as to your comprehension of science and your honour as an individual. Here is a third. If you do not take it up, I really shall know what to think — and so will everybody else.

I look forward to hearing from you — soon.

I look forward to reading your theory.

a reply to: kayej1188

I have no formal knowledge of biology — in my country, at the time I was a schoolboy, students had to choose between physical and biological sciences in high school, and I chose to study the former — but I had absolutely no trouble following your narrative. Mind you, evolutionary biology has been a keen interest of mine since I read The Selfish Gene back in the early Eighties.

Thank you for a genuinely interesting and informative post. I suspect its content will make little difference to our creationist friends, but then, it probably wouldn't make any difference to them if God himself were to come down to Earth and assert the truth of evolution. In fact, they'd probably crucify Him.

a reply to: kayej1188
"WE HAVE SKULLS THAT BEAUTIFULLY DISPLAY THIS TRANSITION STEP BY STEP, BEGINNING FROM EARLY REPTILES ALL THE WAY TO EARLY MAMMALS."

Or of course, conversely, describing beautifully the perfecting of earlier prototypes to adapt organic vehicles that are more suitable to their changing environment by intelligently modifying the animals DNA.

Modern science's woeful misunderstanding of the reality of life will continue to lead them down a blind alley until they finally unravel what consciousness is. I accept that a scientist can only arrive at a theory based on objective truth. The problem that will always haunt them is that true reality, can never be observed or become objective until their consciousness, hence their objectivity, expands to encompass other dimensions of life. It is the destiny of all humanity through the evolution of our consciousness to encompass other dimensions but this is 10s of thousands of years into the future.

All that Anthropologist and Palaeontologists can do presently is record and study the amazing feats of creation.
ETA: Science is the child as they pull away from the driveway shouting "are we there yet?

originally posted by: Astyanax

Hi, BlackManINC. It's over two days since you wrote the post I'm replying to here. I've addressed you twice since then, but you haven't answered.

I asked you some questions with respect to your post (referenced above) in an attempt to get you to clarify your position. Here are the questions again, for the third time.

Do you think life comes in different 'kinds'? That animals are a different 'kind' of life from plants? That humans are a different 'kind' of life from animals? Would you care to explain what the difference is?

And while we're on the subject, would you care to explain the difference between animate and inanimate matter? This is something I have never been able to understand. It seems obvious at first, but on closer inspection none of the attributes that seem to create a distinction between life and dead matter are actually unique to one or the other. Very disturbing.

Well for one, the way the Bible defines life is different than how the world defines it. The difference isn't so much physical like the world would like you to believe as it is spiritual. Life is in the spirit, not in the flesh. The only things that were given spirit are animals and humans, not plants, and animals have a different kind of spirit than we do, for we have a soul, animals don't. Biblically, a plant, like a tree, or any other inanimate objects is nothing more than a bio-chemical machine that reacts to stimuli in the environment. All of the false religions, including the new age however will tell you differently. These are the main differences between us and them. Those with a materialistic view cannot explain why we are so different than everything else intellectually, why we have the innate ability to create and destroy, to think and reason for ourselves because they are only looking at physical and genetic similarities as if the buck stops there, as if similarity equals common descent. Logically, if you are going to look only at the physical, then you really won't see much of a difference between life and dead matter, because technically, all life was formed from dead matter, from the dust of the earth as the Bible states. This is why you don't see a difference, because all life is of the earth.

originally posted by: AstyanaxYou have claimed many times that abiogenesis and evolution are unscientific concepts, which presumes you have the scientific knowledge and insight to make such a claim. How could this be? As someone else asked, where is your theory?

Of course, another possibility is that you do not answer me because you have no answer, or no answer you have courage enough to offer. That you have, in fact, no actual theory or hypothesis to put in place of the conventional narrative of abiogenesis and evolution. That you have no answer to the question of why 'microevolution' cannot become 'macroevolution' — that successive small changes can add up to huge ones. That your claimed scientific expertise is bogus: nothing but a typical creationist lie.

Abiogenesis never has been proven, this is why most of you apes attempt to distance yourself from it altogether in the first place am I right? I don't have to answer this question because none of you have provided a mechanism for how micro changes will lead to macro-evolutionary in the first place. The only thing you have is the magic wand of time, keep the faith, and eventually, these mechanisms will lead to an ape forming into a human. Why provide a theory at all when you have no theory worth my time? All I see are a never ending stream of micro-evolutionary changes that are subordinate to each other, that isn't even circumstantial evidence for common descent as I have proven over and over again with every example brought up. Are you creatures just going to keep playing this game of circular reasoning, because I can move on to better things?

a reply to: josehelps


No.. science does not disprove Divine Creation, nor does it try to, nor are any scientists without a personal religious agenda in any way motivated to. Nor could science ever disprove Divine Creation. Divine Creation is a supernatural event. Science cannot study or in any way work with the supernatural.
In fact , it's creationist that disproves Divine Creation and even the existence of God as well. Creationist accomplishes that impossible task by convincing its followers of the false premises that say that if the world truly is as it actually is, then Scripture has no meaning, God does not exist, and they all are required to become atheists. That is exactly what several fundamentalists have insisted to me emphatically over the years. And many non-creationist accept creationist false premises at face value and seeing that the claims of creationist are false, follow the creationist conclusions that God does not exist. The creationist and its "creation science" is one of the major contributors to the growth and spread of atheism.

I know this discussion really has nothing to do with how one interprets the evidence, even though that is part of creationist rhetoric. Their primary tool is "creation science", which does operate by offering alternative interpretations, but only by misquoting and misrepresenting science and scientific sources. The primary claim of "creation science" is that it has scientific evidence to support its claims of a young earth, world-wide flood, non-relatedness of humans with other animals, etc. And that many reputable scientists also support their position. Of course, all that is lies and deception.


My point is not made to "disprove Creationism", but rather to expose the "creation science" claims as being false. God has nothing to do with it, nor does any aspect of Divine Creation. It is entirely about exposing the lies of "creation science".

a reply to: BlackManINC

Well for one, the way the Bible defines life is different than how the world defines it.

Am I to take it, then, that your objections to evolution and abiogenesis are religious, not scientific? If only you had said so in the first place, a great deal of verbiage could have been conserved. Instead, you've been claiming a scientific foundation for your denial of the truth of evolution and abiogenesis. You've been saying that creationist ideas are scientifically invalid. You've been using arguments against evolution you called scientific.

Were you lying to us all this time?

Abiogenesis never has been proven, this is why most of you apes attempt to distance yourself from it altogether in the first place am I right?

Have I attempted to distance myself from it? Abiogenesis is not a theory (in the scientific sense), but there is a hypothesis. It seems a very likely one to me, but for obvious reasons we are never likely to know for sure. Even so, I am happy to accept that life emerged from non-living matter without the intervention of any conscious entity. In fact, I believe such emergence to be inevitable, for reasons made clear in this thread.

By the way: I am perfectly happy to be called an ape by someone who believes we are all apes — more accurately, members of the family Hominidae. However, when someone who denies this truth nevertheless calls me an ape, I have no option but to take it as an insult, because that is clearly how it is intended. I have dealt courteously and fairly with you, so kindly apologize.

I don't have to answer this question because none of you have provided a mechanism for how micro changes will lead to macro-evolutionary in the first place.

There is no qualitative distinction between 'micro' and 'macro' in evolutionary biology; the distinction is purely quantitative and there is no need to postulate any kind of mechanism to explain how one leads to the other. It is creationists who insist on a qualitative disctinction. I thought you were going to propose a scientifically valid qualitative distinction and provide a reason why that distinction formed a barrier between microevolution and macroevolution.

That would have been interesting. However, it is now clear that you are a Biblical creationist with no scientific understanding or relevant knowledge, and I am no longer interested in your views. Farewell.

a reply to: BlackManINC

You haven't debunked anything. If you could actually debunk Lucy or scientific dating methods, you would become famous over night. But alas talk is cheap, and that seems to be all that creationists do. They can't back anything up with evidence or show where the science is wrong, so they have no case at all. Humans ARE apes, so showing Lucy to be similar to ape is a laughable argument at best. Do you honestly believe that the 20 + REAL discovered species of hominid in between ancient ape and modern human, that show slow cranial capacity increase over time are just merely coincidence? How else can you interpret that evidence? It is perfectly consistent with the evolutionary model.

Darwinist: Not a real term, in fact hasn't been valid since the late 1800s. Creationists only use it today to slander scientists. Referencing Darwin in 2014 is a dishonest tactic as the theory has been confirmed and reconfirmed dozens of times since then and has greatly evolved since Darwin first proposed it.

Evolutionist: Not a real term either. It is only used by creationists to imply religious connotations with evolution. There is no such thing as an evolutionist. There are evolutionary biologists, the scientists who study evolution, and then there are people that support the scientific method.

Missing link: A misnomer. Every fossil is a transitional species from one generation to the next. There isn't some magical missing link that's 50/50 hybrid creature that exists for every species. Intermediary species have been found, of course, like fish with legs and the 20+ hominid species that fit in the homo genus.

en.wikipedia.org...

So pretty much every thing you said in your post was wrong.

I don't have to answer this question because none of you have provided a mechanism for how micro changes will lead to macro-evolutionary in the first place. The only thing you have is the magic wand of time, keep the faith, and eventually, these mechanisms will lead to an ape forming into a human. Why provide a theory at all when you have no theory worth my time?

Funny, you claim that nobody has provided a mechanism, but I broke it down 3 pages ago in a very detailed post showing the math on how it is possible for mutations to affect a large percentage of the genome. You have not yet countered it, and my post was completely ignored by you. The mechanism is genetic mutation, and the fact that you continuously ignore any post that proves you wrong speaks volumes. You aren't here to argue evidence, you are here to deny it completely on a whim.

Explain why genetic mutations do not add up or do not effect certain traits. Go ahead. The burden of proof is on you to show why the mutations will not add up, as the logical math says that it will. YOU need to provide evidence or at least a logical reason why you say this cannot happen. Thus far you have dodged this question dozens of times and failed to explain your point or even address ANY of the provided evidence for you.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: BlackManINC

That would have been interesting. However, it is now clear that you are a Biblical creationist with no scientific understanding or relevant knowledge, and I am no longer interested in your views. Farewell

Bravo! on a magnificent and noteworthy piece of arrogance befitting of the very finest flatlander scientist or should I say observers of a limited landscape. A scientist is the last person that should be forming hypothesis and declaring theory as fact because the very nature and method of their enquiry excludes the evidence that provides the answers. It's little wonder that the best they can come up with is a forever morphing theory.
ETA: I just re-read that and laughed at the pun. The new name for evolution "The forever Morphing Theory"

a reply to: kennyb72

A scientist is the last person that should be forming hypothesis and declaring theory as fact because the very nature and method of their enquiry excludes the evidence that provides the answers.

That has to be one of the strangest things I have seen someone state.

I assume you are trying to outline the scientific method except you got it jumbled up with other stuff. Here I will give you a diagram they even taught this back in the 80s high school.



Here is the definition of a scientific theory for you.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

You see it can be considered a fact if it has been corroborated and tested repeatedly.

Anywa for you to say scientists shouldn't be using those models is real strange. Scientists are exactly the ones who should and do use those models. I just wish religionists had or would have standards so high because at the moment they are stuck at construct a hypothesis but never go any further.

Well guys anyone without religious constraints who need info on the facts of evolution shpuld read this thread.
They will see one group presenting facts about evolution and the other being spitefull,name calling and of course..
.fake percicution.
They are clutching at straws and still not willing to accept the facts of evolution.
When they make another thread calling others apes as a derogatory term just point them back to this thread, you guys have answered all the questions that they attempt to use to discredit evolution and shown them that they are blinded by ignorance and an old book.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: kennyb72

A scientist is the last person that should be forming hypothesis and declaring theory as fact because the very nature and method of their enquiry excludes the evidence that provides the answers.

That has to be one of the strangest things I have seen someone state.

I assume you are trying to outline the scientific method except you got it jumbled up with other stuff. Here I will give you a diagram they even taught this back in the 80s high school.

Here is the definition of a scientific theory for you.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

You see it can be considered a fact if it has been corroborated and tested repeatedly.

Anywa for you to say scientists shouldn't be using those models is real strange. Scientists are exactly the ones who should and do use those models. I just wish religionists had or would have standards so high because at the moment they are stuck at construct a hypothesis but never go any further.

That is all very fine, providing you have access to all the facts, and that conclusions are arrived at by looking at ALL the data. What you fail to understand or even admit to, is that less than 1% of the data is available to you using the standard scientific method.

You cannot observe or measure the unobservable. We have not to date come even close to understanding the multidimensional reality of our existence and the life sustaining /life forming energies that are in play. I am not a religionist, I am an esotericist/exotericist more accurately as this knowledge is now in the public domain.

ETA: Please leave the unknowable to those more qualified i.e. Philosophers, Metaphysicists, when they arrive at an understanding they will give you a call.