Evolution is a farce: Evidence

a reply to: BlackManINC

Oh that's right... the Universe can't be billions of years old because everything started here...

on this planet...

How silly of me.... LOL

a reply to: BlackManINC

That appears to be a rather old article neighbor.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: BlackManINC

That appears to be a rather old article neighbor.

From 2002, that has yet to be challenged. I shouldn't find proteins in any dino bone if its old as the religion of evolution claims they are.

a reply to: Noinden
macro and micro are Creationists terms?? Brother you are lost. Ask Berkley College.

a reply to: Quadrivium

The way it is being used here (as if they are separate things) are wrong. Only creationists use them in that manner Again if you've read the thread (which you will not have), I've an academic background in bioinformatics, so understand the genetics of evolution very well.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Noinden
macro and micro are Creationists terms?? Brother you are lost. Ask Berkley College.

Don't even bother suggesting it to him, they see what they want to see when it comes to evidence.

a reply to: BlackManINC

Proteins are not DNA neighbor. Even you should understand this. A fellow poster has already posted something explaining this. Again in no way shape or form has DNA been found in those samples of "Soft tissue".

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: BlackManINC

Proteins are not DNA neighbor. Even you should understand this. A fellow poster has already posted something explaining this. Again in no way shape or form has DNA been found in those samples of "Soft tissue".

Never said proteins are DNA, I said proteins will not last for 65 million years, but you are welcome to believe otherwise for the sake of your faith in evolution.

a reply to: BlackManINC

The finding of protein holds no evidence for or against evolution. So how is this pertinent again?

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Noinden
macro and micro are Creationists terms?? Brother you are lost. Ask Berkley College.

The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply don’t pay attention to them.

Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.

When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons — this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes.

The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.


atheism.about.com...

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

The way it is being used here (as if they are separate things) are wrong. Only creationists use them in that manner

Again if you've read the thread (which you will not have), I've an academic background in bioinformatics, so understand the genetics of evolution very well.

AND????
If you are claiming that they are not separate then you have a very unscientific understanding of science. Simply put if you know the definition of "science" you should be able to see that a case can be made for the "micro" yet not the "macro" by lumping them together you are actually hurting the "theory". There is no way to prove the "macro". Only speculations and assumptions.

a reply to: Grimpachi
The "magic line" you refer to is called SCIENCE. We can make a case for the micro yet there is no way to prove the macro.

a reply to: Quadrivium

There is a "definition of science" is there? Wow they missed that in University, and instead taught us actual science, and how to be objective, and think critically.

You and your comrades are doing a fine job towing the party line, but there is nothing in the theory of evolution which contradicts your holy book. See I'm not an atheist, I am actually a person who follows a faith (a non Abrahamic one). I am in no way threatened by science, or evolution, But it appears that you and your friends are terrified about it.

But back to the topic. There is no difference between micro and macro evolution. The only people who claim there is, are creationists (be they young or old earthers) and IDers.

So come on, in your own (limited) words, expalin micro and macro evolution as you understand it. Do not post a link to a single university. Use your own words. Oh and I have access to plagiarism detection software so I'm going to know if you cheat

Evolution is evolution. It is the change through genetic mutation. It occurs on a generational level and it has been shown to occur on a much longer time scale. Now we have Denisovian and Neanderthal genomes pieced together we have the ability to look at other hominins.

a reply to: Quadrivium

No neighbor the "magic line" is not science, it is something which creationists try to impose to try and gain traction for their fantasies, which they parade as science. Science requires objectivity and critical thinking, and a healthy dose of skepticism. Creationism requires faith. Faith is all well and good (like I said I am religious, just not Abrahamic) but it has no place in science as it is unprovable, nor can it be disproven either, short of a Deity appearing and going "sorry guys, I was late".... essentially its between the adherent and their higher power(s).

a reply to: kennyb72

Based on strawmen, at any rate.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Grimpachi
The "magic line" you refer to is called SCIENCE. We can make a case for the micro yet there is no way to prove the macro.

Actually the magic line is purely from the creationist camp but they can never seem to explain exactly where they drew it at they just claim one is there.

Science makes no distinction if you disagree I challenge you to source where science does.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I've discovered that the line is drawn in such a way that anything that disproves their argument can be discounted as "not science", anything they put forward however seems not to get the magic line

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: BlackManINC

The finding of protein holds no evidence for or against evolution. So how is this pertinent again?

Can proteins last for 65 million years Noinden? Its a simple yes or no question.

originally posted by: kennyb72
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.

Come on... It was a figure of speech, a colloquialism. It wasn't intended to convey any special significance or life force upon the genetic material.

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".

So are you asexual or a virgin? Those are the only two possible options if you can't fathom the impulse to co tinge your lineage. Its an inherent urge in all life whether a complex creature like. Blue whale or a single celled amoeba. The one primary drive and function is to continue spreading the seed. Biology 101.

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!

Isn't that cute, instead of debating the legitimacy of any scientific claims you resort to juvenile antics. I suppose in a sense you are spot on. It takes two people of equal knowledge for a debate to take place and since I'm better off arguing with the wall if I expect any sort of recompense regarding my output of information, I'll give you a cookie for that.

a reply to: Noinden

Noinden,
Honestly, at your "university" you didn't learn the definition of science? What the term means? How it works ? How to properly and accurately "do" it?
So they just showed you something and said "THIS IS SCIENCE"? ...........WOW. No wonder we are failing as a society.