Evolution is a farce: Evidence

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: Barcs

Fellow ape man, I`m looking at some of the fossils, and I see nothing at all special about them. There are many creatures that have characteristics of many different kinds.

And already we are right back to square one where someone who doesn't really grasp the fundamentals is trying to dispute the science by associating it with terminology derived from The KJV. How do you reconcile that level of disconnect?

The Seymouria, for example, has features similar to that of reptiles and amphibians, but it isn`t seen as a "transitional fossil " because it appeared too late on the evolutionary timescale.

The point in the geologic timescale in which a particular morphology appears is in no way endemic to the label of "transitional". As Krazyshot pointed out, its the equivalent of a default rallying point for those who don't believe in or understand biological evolution because ALL FOSSILS are transitional fossils. Every generation is transitional. If you have children, they are not a mirror of your own genetic code, they are the combination of yours and your mates effectively bridging a gap while simultaneously placing one foot forward I to the future.

You have the duck billed Platypus, a mammal which has characteristics also seen on Reptiles and birds. There are many other examples seen in nature, like the Seal, that I can chalk up to variety in design.

Just because YOU can rationalize and minimize something so that its easier to put away in a tidy little drawer for easier classification, because that's exactly what chalking it all up to ingenious designers in the sky does... Its taking the easy way out, doesnt mean that it actually is easier, neater or tidier. Its just lazy hubris when you approach it that way.

Your only real "evidence" for these reptiles being "transitional" when it comes down to it is the evolutionary timescale, the age of the earth which I don`t buy into.

Then exactly what time scale do you support?

You still haven`t provided a mechanism for this to occur, as usual you just show similarities and assert "common descent".

To start with, for these homologous features to be a result of common ancestry, living fossil or not, the genes that code for these features would also be the same, since we all descended from a single genetic code as evolution demands.

Can you support that bit of supposition with anything resembling a citation? For example, lets loom at bats and the hands/arms of other mammals. D you really think those features are not homologous? Genetics says you would be wrong in that.

Well, it has been discovered that this is not true at all as the genes that code for these features in creatures with homologous features are in fact different. This all starts at the genetic level fellow ape man, so if common descent had any truth to it at all, then the genes would be the same, not different as we see in all homologous creatures.

You like to make some Bold and saucy claims while demanding supporting Information from everyone else but feel that supporting your own statements is beneath your station in life... Very odd indeed for someone with as much braggadocio as you exude. Support your claims with research and data so that we can have a real crack at it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

"All fossils are transitional"

I find it insulting that you are demanding I take this on faith when you can`t provide a mechanism proving it. Here is the bottom line, evolutionary theory predicted years ago that the genes that coded for these homologous features would be the same as that would be real evidence of common descent. Creationists predicted that they would not be the same as this would be evidence of nothing more than variety in design. Creationist predicted correctly as the genes that codes for these features aren't the same even among the same kind of animal. The genes that code for the similar features
seen in frogs and salamander for example, and all other creatures of the same kind aren't even the same. So starting at the genetic level, the beginning stage, you have no proof of homology by common descent.

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: Krazysh0t

"All fossils are transitional"

I find it insulting that you are demanding I take this on faith when you can`t provide a mechanism proving it.

I find it insulting that you refuse to properly educate yourself on what evolution is and says then try to debate people who have properly educated themselves on it, so I guess we are even.

Take what on faith? It's just a statement of fact. All fossils are transitional. There IS a mechanism that proves it by the way, it's called Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. Every generation mutates its genes slightly from its parents.

Transitional Fossils

Since all species will always be subject to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception. It is however a commonly used term and a useful concept in evolutionary biology. The fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various lines and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase.

Here is the bottom line, evolutionary theory predicted years ago that the genes that coded for these homologous features would be the same as that would be real evidence of common descent.

Evidence of common descent

Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Further evidence for common descent comes from genetic detritus such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA that are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration from cumulative mutations.

Creationists predicted that they would not be the same as this would be evidence of nothing more than variety in design. Creationist predicted correctly as the genes that codes for these features aren't the same even among the same kind of animal. The genes that code for the similar features
seen in frogs and salamander for example, and all other creatures of the same kind aren't even the same. So starting at the genetic level, the beginning stage, you have no proof of homology by common descent.

You have a terrible grasp of how genetics works. Just because two animals aren't genetically identical doesn't mean that they don't share a common ancestor or can't reproduce together. You are just making up science. The only animals that have identical genetics are clones. The closest there is to a natural clone is an identical twin, but not all organisms can create them.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Fellow ape man, so many exceptions to the prediction that similar genetic sequences are phylogeneticly homologous have been discovered that it is now an exception rather than the rule. In many creatures, such as the mouse, the genes that control the mouse eye color also regulates its physical size. But in a fruit fly, those same genes also controls the size of its eyes, but it does not control its physical size, it controls the morphology of the female sex organ instead.

a reply to: BlackManINC

Prove it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I`m doing this on an android phone, so its impossible to link the reports at the moment. You claim that you are well versed on homology so I`m assuming you`re just #ing with me by demanding I "prove" it as if you don`t already know about the numerous examples where phylogenetic genes in one creature also serves multiple functions in contrast to those of others, sometimes STILL getting entirely different results. You are more than welcome to believe that this is somehow evidence of common descent.

a reply to: BlackManINC

I want you to post proof for every one of the following sentences:

Here is the bottom line, evolutionary theory predicted years ago that the genes that coded for these homologous features would be the same as that would be real evidence of common descent. Creationists predicted that they would not be the same as this would be evidence of nothing more than variety in design. Creationist predicted correctly as the genes that codes for these features aren't the same even among the same kind of animal.

Don't worry about if I already know these things or not, just start putting external links to these things that back up what you are saying.

originally posted by: BlackManINC
I find it insulting that you are demanding I take this on faith when you can`t provide a mechanism proving it.

the only disingenuous and illogical ones I've seen in nearly 4 dozen pages of tom foolery has originated with you or your lackeys. Everyone who has argued against your fairy tale and in favor of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis has supported their statements and positions with appropriate citations and current research.and no... 2002 is not current research especially when we're bringing genetics into the picture.

Instead of educating yourselves on what it actually is the "ape men" are discussing as part of their theories and hypothesis, you instead play the ' smoke and mirrors ' game. Nobody is demanding anything except that you give yourself a basic education on Modern Evolutionary Synthesis so you can cease the inanity of your rationalizations.

Here is the bottom line, evolutionary theory predicted years ago that the genes that coded for these homologous features would be the same as that would be real evidence of common descent.

The bottom line? No...the bottom line is that even if we were to completely exclude every instance of anatomical homology, it does still exist at the molecular level. More so, in contrast to how you wish to portray it, the decreasing frequency of many homologues is in fact evidence for an ancient shared lineage based on the degree of genetic diversity being currently exhibited. If any creationist has written a valid paper then please, prove me wrong by linking the information so I can take my grievance right to the source because you're just carrying someone else's water right now because all you're doing is spouting off generalizations and not an iota of support for them anywhere.

Creationists predicted that they would not be the same as this would be evidence of nothing more than variety in design. Creationist predicted correctly as the genes that codes for these features aren't the same even among the same kind of animal. The genes that code for the similar features seen in frogs and salamander for example, and all other creatures of the same kind aren't even the same. So starting at the genetic level, the beginning stage, you have no proof of homology by common descent.

It always blows my mind when you cats get up on your perch and pontificate endlessly as if you're going to use science to debunk the actual peer reviewed research... and then you can't get the basics right. Kinds? Are we taking a head count on the Ark for Noah? Seriously... When did "kinds" become any sort of legitimate descriptor in biology? And specifically, what genes or receptors are you referring to? Unless you don't want your work to be checked by people who have the resources to do so and see just how entirely full of coprolites you actually are?

a reply to: BlackManINC

You seem really hung up on this "ape man" thing neighbor. It seems to be clouding your objectivity in all other discussions here. I mean come one, each of us has presented scientific data in this thread (and others) and you skim past that so you can throw out what you believe to be an insult. It is as if deep down you fear we are right, and your very foundations will crumble. I find your lack of faith disturbing.

This is called "blind faith" people...

You can't expect him to read when his eyes are closed...

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Grimpachi
You can simply do this on your own.
FIRST- Apply the definition of science to each (the macro and the micro).
Second- Apply the Scientific Method to each.
If you don't see the line then rinse and repeat.

It has been done thousands of times already. But what does that have to do with what I asked you?

Seems to me you are trying to slither your way out of answering honestly. If you really want to slink off go ahead even though I made a simple request of you.

I guess it was too much to expect you to man up and admit you had nothing.

If it has been "shown a thousand times" perhaps you should look once for yourself.
I said earlier "we can make a case for the micro yet not scientifically for the macro".
Seriously, apply what you quoted in my last post and see it for yourself. It is the ONLY way you will learn anything.

Sorry you must have misunderstood. Thousands of times it has been sown there is nothing different between Micro and macro. There is no imaginary magical line.

You seem to disagree with that yet can't produce "anything" to corroborate that.

Seems to me you are the one lacking in education here.

So I will say again.

"Science makes no distinction (between micro and macro evolution or what drives it) if you disagree I challenge you to source where science does.what"

Perhaps you are using a creationist definition of theory as well I don't know but you are going wrong somewhere.

You are not thinking past what you are told. Look, it's is actually kind of simple. We can observe "mico". How can you or anyone else claim that the "macro" is the same? Were you here to observe it? We can speculate, we can assume, but that is all. We can not use science to say they are same. Science does not work that way.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Hey buddy. Long time no see.

Here is the problem with this line of understanding:

The people who think macro evolution uses a separate mechanism, think that macro evolutionary changes emerge as quickly as they do with the small changes. They want to know how a family or genus can turn into another. This isn't the case. Big changes are caused by a larger percentage of the genes being changed over time, which will happen since no creature is an exact copy of its parents. If they change enough over time, scientists CLASSIFY them in another family or genus. It is not one exact moment when the genus suddenly changes.

Why is there a magical barrier imposed by creationists that says mutations cannot add up past a certain point? Why would certain traits or genes be impervious or exempt to mutation? Why would an additional mechanism be required? A monkey doesn't just turn into a human. It turns into a slightly different monkey, which turns into a slightly different monkey. Each generation slightly changes until a much larger portion of the genome has been manipulated and the creature no longer looks like your typical monkey. Explain exactly and precisely why this cannot happen.

No creationist has EVER addressed this point. I posed it to Blackman Inc, Vasaga, you in the past, Borntowatch and dozens of others on numerous occasions. The point is avoided and ignored EVERY time and the subject is change or the original point is repeated. If 1 + 1 does indeed equal 2, then 100-200 mutations per generation will add up significantly more with more generations. Unless there is evidence you have to counter this, you should probably not be talking about evolution (that's to all of you guys who dishonestly attack science because of your religious beliefs).

Don't tell us how science works, when your best evidence is denial and creating invisible magical barriers. I challenge any one of you to address this the point. Denying the points or pretending they don't exist, doesn't count.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Grimpachi
You can simply do this on your own.
FIRST- Apply the definition of science to each (the macro and the micro).
Second- Apply the Scientific Method to each.
If you don't see the line then rinse and repeat.

It has been done thousands of times already. But what does that have to do with what I asked you?

Seems to me you are trying to slither your way out of answering honestly. If you really want to slink off go ahead even though I made a simple request of you.

I guess it was too much to expect you to man up and admit you had nothing.

If it has been "shown a thousand times" perhaps you should look once for yourself.
I said earlier "we can make a case for the micro yet not scientifically for the macro".
Seriously, apply what you quoted in my last post and see it for yourself. It is the ONLY way you will learn anything.

Sorry you must have misunderstood. Thousands of times it has been sown there is nothing different between Micro and macro. There is no imaginary magical line.

You seem to disagree with that yet can't produce "anything" to corroborate that.

Seems to me you are the one lacking in education here.

So I will say again.

"Science makes no distinction (between micro and macro evolution or what drives it) if you disagree I challenge you to source where science does.what"

Perhaps you are using a creationist definition of theory as well I don't know but you are going wrong somewhere.

You are not thinking past what you are told. Look, it's is actually kind of simple. We can observe "mico". How can you or anyone else claim that the "macro" is the same? Were you here to observe it? We can speculate, we can assume, but that is all. We can not use science to say they are same. Science does not work that way.

If you start stacking grains of sand on top of each other, eventually you will form a pile of sand. If you keep doing this, it will become a mound. You can also continue to stack grains of sand on top of each other and eventually you'll create a mountain. Do I need to see this sand stacking process carry out to the end to know that a mountain would be created? No, it uses the same processes to create the pile or the mound. It is just extrapolated out to greater degree.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've posted the exact same links for him before.

What lap are we on? Is anyone keeping count?

a reply to: kennyb72

Well I guess our exchange ends here. I was hoping to discuss the science rather than go off on a tangent about personal contributions to the field. That is kind of a red herring, don't you think? It doesn't take personal contributions to understand the subject matter. I don't claim to be some world renowned scientist and my personal contributions involve educating folks who aren't familiar with subject. I don't claim to have greater knowledge than a scientist or try to tell them their models are wrong because "OMG curvature of space? Wut!!!". I trust the scientific method to get us where we're going. Hypotheses do indeed get proposed and rejected quite often, but it always continues to build on existing data and our knowledge as a whole has been skyrocketing as a result.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Grimpachi
You can simply do this on your own.
FIRST- Apply the definition of science to each (the macro and the micro).
Second- Apply the Scientific Method to each.
If you don't see the line then rinse and repeat.

It has been done thousands of times already. But what does that have to do with what I asked you?

Seems to me you are trying to slither your way out of answering honestly. If you really want to slink off go ahead even though I made a simple request of you.

I guess it was too much to expect you to man up and admit you had nothing.

If it has been "shown a thousand times" perhaps you should look once for yourself.
I said earlier "we can make a case for the micro yet not scientifically for the macro".
Seriously, apply what you quoted in my last post and see it for yourself. It is the ONLY way you will learn anything.

Sorry you must have misunderstood. Thousands of times it has been sown there is nothing different between Micro and macro. There is no imaginary magical line.

You seem to disagree with that yet can't produce "anything" to corroborate that.

Seems to me you are the one lacking in education here.

So I will say again.

"Science makes no distinction (between micro and macro evolution or what drives it) if you disagree I challenge you to source where science does.what"

Perhaps you are using a creationist definition of theory as well I don't know but you are going wrong somewhere.

You are not thinking past what you are told. Look, it's is actually kind of simple. We can observe "mico". How can you or anyone else claim that the "macro" is the same? Were you here to observe it? We can speculate, we can assume, but that is all. We can not use science to say they are same. Science does not work that way.

Barcs covered it but let me simplify it for you.

Micro is happening all the time with each generation. Given enough time and generations perhaps millions micro would be called macro.

You say we can not use science to say they are same yet we do. You say science doesn't work that way yet it does.

The problem seems to be your understanding of science but sorry it will not change to accommodate your beliefs.

I have stated this a couple of times.

"Science makes no distinction (between micro and macro evolution or what drives it) if you disagree I challenge you to source where science does.

You have not once risen to the challenge yet I know you can't.

Instead you fall back to saying things such as this.

Were you here to observe it?

I am curious since you seem to endorse an ID biblical creation. Were you here to observe it?

I have seen many creationists lose their composure when that question was turned around on them I hope you do not.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've posted the exact same links for him before.

What lap are we on? Is anyone keeping count?

As I have.
As futile as it was, is and will be.


One small irony I've noticed in this thread though is that the most aggressive posters seem to be the science deniers.
Saying that, it is understandable they behave like that when they believe in such an aggressive deity.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Here you go:

Evolution at different scales: micro to macro

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:

mutation
migration
genetic drift
natural selection

cont.

Microevolutionary change might seem too unimportant to account for such amazing evolutionary transitions as the origin of dinosaurs or the radiation of land plants — however, it is not. Microevolution happens on a small time scale — from one generation to the next. When such small changes build up over the course of millions of years, they translate into evolution on a grand scale — in other words, macroevolution!

The four basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time. And life on Earth has been accumulating small changes for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for these simple evolutionary processes to produce its grand history.

more

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using multiple lines of evidence, including geology, fossils, and living organisms.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Apologies. Quad knows what I was asking for.

I have been asking him for scientific sources that demonstrate the magic line between micro and macro and how science would say the drives of each would be different.

Of course I know my request/challenge to him can't be met but it is fun to see what kind of mental gymnastics he does to explain why he can't.

I am aware of the geological and fossil evidence for evolution and appreciate the links however I am sure the camp that doesn't believe in evolution will dismiss them.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I know. I was supporting your argument.