Evolution is a farce: Evidence

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I should have completed my previous post, although I thought you would have detected it's Implication. It is not my thread to discuss every aspect of physics and how they translate in hylozoics. That WOULD be going off topic. Hylozoics explains everything, I would be happy to explain my understanding in another thread if enough interest was shown. Not much likelihood of that though! as it requires people to think for themselves.

Please don't patronise me with your impatience, you may think it's clever to make such statements, I don't.

a reply to: BlackManINC

You say apes as if it is an insult neighbor. You also don't read very well do you? Genetic mutation is the mechanism of evolution. Its been observed.

a reply to: BlackManINC

I'm not disputing the decay rate of DNA. I'm disputing your interpretation of the data since it is flawed. The decay rate of DNA doesn't disprove the age of the dinosaurs. It just says that we don't have any DNA to analyze of the dinosaurs, but we can obviously still date the bones. None of it, however, disproves that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, the earth is 4.6 billion years old and the dinosaurs lived 231 - 66 million years ago.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: BlackManINC

You say apes as if it is an insult neighbor. You also don't read very well do you? Genetic mutation is the mechanism of evolution. Its been observed.

I don't see it as an insult at all, I take it as a complement for YOU creatures since you believe you are apes. Don't know why you keep bringing up my referring to you as apes, because you wouldn't be doing it if you didn't have a problem with it. And mutations is a mechanism for change for the various species seen within a kind, not a mechanism for common descent, for a kind forming into another kind. If the former is what you are referring to as evolution then I have no problem with it. If you are referring to the latter belief that with time an amphibian will turn into a handsome black prince, then that is a belief that belongs to the realm of Disneyland instead of a so called science textbook.

originally posted by: BlackManINC
If you are referring to the latter belief that with time an amphibian will turn into a handsome black prince, then that is a belief that belongs to the realm of Disneyland instead of a so called science textbook.

It certainly does belong there. The theory of evolution doesn't say that either.

Why is it that you Creationists like to oversimplify evolution to absurdity then pretend like it is an actual account of how evolution works? Do you realize how insulting it is to not even attempt to properly understand evolution before you come and debate with someone about it?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: BlackManINC

I'm not disputing the decay rate of DNA. I'm disputing your interpretation of the data since it is flawed. The decay rate of DNA doesn't disprove the age of the dinosaurs. It just says that we don't have any DNA to analyze of the dinosaurs, but we can obviously still date the bones. None of it, however, disproves that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, the earth is 4.6 billion years old and the dinosaurs lived 231 - 66 million years ago.

Actually we do have DNA directly from dinosaurs, they recovered it from a T-Rex bone for example, revived.

Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue

For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex.

Well, as it was recently discovered that DNA won't even last 7 million years even under the most well preserved conditions, it debunks the claim that these creatures are anywhere near 65 to 230 million years old. You can try and work around the evidence and twist it to fit into your beliefs about the age of the earth all you wish, I expect you to because its common practice with you creatures.

a reply to: BlackManINC

Sigh... I notice you failed to put a link to your claim. But oh well, this isn't a new Creationist argument. That wasn't DNA they found. It was mineralized deposits left in the bone.

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

Then, in 2007, Schweitzer and her colleagues analyzed the chemistry of the T. rex proteins. They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen — which makes sense, as modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs such as T. rex.

Also from the article

Importantly, Schweitzer and her colleagues have figured out how to remove the iron from their samples, which enables them to analyze the original proteins. They've even found chemicals consistent with being DNA, though Schweitzer is quick to note that she hasn't proven they really are DNA. The iron-removing techniques should allow paleontologists to search more effectively for soft tissue, and to test it when they find it.

See, NOT DNA.

originally posted by: BlackManINC

I don't see it as an insult at all, I take it as a complement for YOU creatures since you believe you are apes. Don't know why you keep bringing up my referring to you as apes, because you wouldn't be doing it if you didn't have a problem with it.

It couldn't be the condescending facetiousness you pull out if your rectum every time you refer to someone as an ape could it? Its petty and pedantic that you have to hide behind such playground level shenanigans in order to make your point.

And mutations is a mechanism for change for the various species seen within a kind, not a mechanism for common descent, for a kind forming into another kind. If the former is what you are referring to as evolution then I have no problem with it.

See,that's the problem you can't see to grasp here. It is that mutations occur on a genetic level therefore they don't concern themselves with your classification systems. They care only about surviving and propagating the next generation. "Kind" in the sense you are using it has no place in a discussion based in science and is not any type of classification used by anyone who isn't arguing in favor of YEC.

If you are referring to the latter belief that with time an amphibian will turn into a handsome black prince, then that is a belief that belongs to the realm of Disneyland instead of a so called science textbook.

Spoken like someone who simply does not want to even learn about the very thing they are arguing against. Ironic as you were just pontificating about genetic mutations but utterly fail to see the role they play over time and how closely humans and the rest of the great apes are related to one another. There are so,e serious failings with the education system if you really believe what your spouting.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: BlackManINC
If you are referring to the latter belief that with time an amphibian will turn into a handsome black prince, then that is a belief that belongs to the realm of Disneyland instead of a so called science textbook.

It certainly does belong there. The theory of evolution doesn't say that either.

Why is it that you Creationists like to oversimplify evolution to absurdity then pretend like it is an actual account of how evolution works? Do you realize how insulting it is to not even attempt to properly understand evolution before you come and debate with someone about it?

My definition of evolution as its taught in school is the same way universities like Berkeley defines it on their own website.

The definition:

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

The explanation:

Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

I can understand you making this claim that I don't understand evolution if you are tying to distance yourself from this fantasy, the fact remains, that according to your fellow ape men, we are distant cousins to everything around us by common descent. Looking at this crap is akin to listening to a pagan treehugger rabble on about how we're related to all around us and how "god" is everything we see in nature. THAT is an insult to my intelligence.

a reply to: BlackManINC

Massive disconnect with reality if you're trying to pass off collagenized tissue as viable DNA in order to support your fantasy argument. Nowhere has it been stated anywhere, by anyone...other than you, that DNA was recovered from dinosaur remains.

a reply to: BlackManINC

You also seem to think that you are not a human by this statement? Because I am pretty sure every person posting og ATS is a Homo sapien, though there may be some silicon based intelligences on there too

You really are showing some willful ignorance of how evolution is described with the rest of that post neighbor.

a reply to: BlackManINC

Hahahaha................

You have just quoted an article that puts another nail in the coffin for YEC. Good job you have just given evidence against your bible creation story.

Copenhagen's Natural History Museum who worked on the project. Even in ideal preservation conditions, the scientists calculated that every single DNA bond would be broken at 6.8 million years: The youngest dino fossils are 65 million years old. And because scientists need long stretches of DNA to replicate it, they estimate that the oldest usable DNA will actually be one to two million years old. The record holder right now is DNA found in ice cores, at 500,000 years old.

I am sure you read that and thought...err...well I am not sure what you thought you were proving however what you have proven is that the fossils are millions of years old since the DNA bonds are broken.

You see the article is about why we can't bring back extinct species of dinos. .

Seeing as how we can't find DNA strands without broken bonds is yet another piece of evidence on how old they are

I didn't expect you to go and disprove your own religion but you did.



On a side note I am not completely ruling out that one day science may be able to bring back Dino's. Technology may advance to a point where they will be able to slice or re-create the DNA sequences and bonds in the lab. DNA splicing is still in its infancy now. Personally I would rather them identify the gene for aging and find a way to turn it off or even reverse the aging process.

a reply to: BlackManINC

Common ancestry isn't what you appear to be getting hung up with on the definition. You made the implication that amphibian plus time equals black prince. That's not true. The change happens over millions of years over many generations with many different small changes building up over time.

a reply to: BlackManINC

No DNA has been recovered from a dinosaur bone. Even if some soft tissue were to survive, DNA degrades after a few tens of thousands of years. So even if a young earther creationist were to want to DNA test something, they'd get very little information of use unless they were incredibly lucky.

a reply to: peter vlar

Yah see its one of the oldest Creationist insults out there. They got all iffy over the idea of a common primate ancestor (millions of years back mind), and can't let go of it. Its very much like certain folks not liking the idea that they are of a certain ethnic group some where in the past. They tend to be the ones who use those naughty words in a hurtful manner.

I'm a primate, I am also a homonin. As far as I know there are no other species of hominin left, for whatever reasons.

a reply to: BlackManINC
Black,
I have been arguing with some of these people for years. Their favorite claim is "you don't understand".
Truth and fact, is that many of them do not have a clue of the nonsense they are spouting. Biological evolution is not scientific. Because when you speak of biological evolution you are speaking of the "macro" as well as the "micro".
By combining the two and saying there is no deference they form a logical fallacy. We can observe one but not the other. Yet they will say that macro is the micro over LONG periods of time........absolutely no proof.
Years ago they spoke of the missing link. It never showed itself. Now it's all about the LCA. Guess what? None of these have been pin pointed either. Oh they will claim its so but nope, not one.
Quad

a reply to: Quadrivium

See you talk about nonsense, then you go and spout it yourself. Macro and micro evolution are terms used by creationists (in the manner its being used here). On top of that "missing link" is a non scientific term, that the media, and other laypersons latched on to.

So you wonder why those of us who are educated in the theory of evolution say that many creationists "do not undestan"? Its because you bloody well do not understand. On top of that (as your fellow creationists are demonstrating) the mud slinging ensues rather fast when no other option for debate is left.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: BlackManINC

Massive disconnect with reality if you're trying to pass off collagenized tissue as viable DNA in order to support your fantasy argument. Nowhere has it been stated anywhere, by anyone...other than you, that DNA was recovered from dinosaur remains.

Well, you see fellow ape man, I read the reports from the biochemist and it states that what has been found so far is consistent with actual DNA. They also detected proteins such as collagen, hemoglobin, osteocalcin, actin, and tubulin. You are more than welcome to believe that proteins can last 65 million years when it has been shown that proteins, even under the best conditions isn't expect to last no more than three million years.

link: www.biochemist.org...

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: BlackManINC
Black,
I have been arguing with some of these people for years. Their favorite claim is "you don't understand".
Truth and fact, is that many of them do not have a clue of the nonsense they are spouting. Biological evolution is not scientific. Because when you speak of biological evolution you are speaking of the "macro" as well as the "micro".
By combining the two and saying there is no deference they form a logical fallacy. We can observe one but not the other. Yet they will say that macro is the micro over LONG periods of time........absolutely no proof.
Years ago they spoke of the missing link. It never showed itself. Now it's all about the LCA. Guess what? None of these have been pin pointed either. Oh they will claim its so but nope, not one.
Quad

Well its just fun watching them run around in circles with their fallacious arguments like apes with their heads cut off. All they have is time, time is "evidence" in their delusional minds.

a reply to: peter vlar

Hi, couldn't help noticing this little snippet of wisdom you threw into your argument

They care only about surviving and propagating the next generation. "Kind" in the sense you are using it has no place in a discussion based in science and is not any type of classification used by anyone who isn't arguing in favor of

Who is they? are you referring to this simple biological organism that happens to be animated by some rather mysterious force that has enough intellect to figure out that it even needed to evolve to survive.

Hmmm survive, I don't actually know what it is to survive, in fact I don't even know why it matters if I survive or not, Oh well I guess if I have this mysterious desire to survive I had better come up with some way that I can adjust my DNA to make a better "whatever I am". Now what's DNA again I've forgotten, oh that's probably because I don't have a brain yet, hang on! whats a brain.

And this is a discussion based on science, seriously!