Evolution is a farce: Evidence

I know what it's supposed to explain. I simply don't believe it. No evidence of such slow changes. Claiming various species are in a line is all assumption, and there is NO proof of any of it. I didn't decide evolution was wrong based on my beliefs; I decided it was wrong based on studying things published by evolutionists.

Sure, some claim you can believe in both, and I have had discussions with such folks. The simple truth is that these are people willing to compromise their beliefs, in order to fit in with the notions of society.

So anybody who is not a fundamentalist is compromising their beliefs? Sorry but it should be about GOD, not literal translations of ancient texts written by man. You value the texts higher than you value god himself, and that's sad.

Tossing out terms like "fundamentalist" doesn't help. if someone claims to believe in Christianity, and then claims not to believe in the associated book, they aren't very firm in their beliefs.

That you disagree doesn't mean they are wrong. Neither evolution nor creation is proven, and thus any and all discussion and debate is valid. Claiming none of the points are valid doesn't make it true. What I typically see is such claims, and claims that all points made in favor of evolution are true, with no support at all.

A "blatant lie"? Offer proof that is from an evolutionist site? You just lost all credibility. Mockery and personal attacks aren't debate.

I have seen evidence. Don't be obtuse. We are also not debating my religious beliefs here, but evolution. Try and stay on topic.

YOU don't have any real examples or real evidence. That's the whole point. List when evolution has been done in a lab. What a joke! Genetic mutations don't make a species change to another species. Genetic information is lost over time, not gained. The theory isn't valid. Pretending that others haven't done research, or don't understand, isn't a valid defense. Everything you state is from evolutionist sites.

On or own, we are not good. Nor do I claim any moral superiority. On my own, I would not be a nice person. hat's the whole point; forgiveness.

If your continuation is more of this, not even bothering to read it. Insults instead of evidence, I don't need to address.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: iterationzero

The discussion on accountability there was as I stated. Go back and read the post. I stated basically that accountability os to God, and he stated that it isn't, and brought up karma, which is accountability,

there is no accountability regarding Karma. It is a cause and effect scenario. There is no damnation or hellfire in the afterlife. I suppose I can see how you may construe it as such, but there are no parallels within the Abrahamic theologies to equate it to in the sense you are trying to impose upon the process. In Karma, it's more a part of a philosophy whereas in Christianity, specifically the last 1500 years of it, its a de facto mandate to act a certain way or face fire and brimstone for eternity. The simple fact that not even all the varying denominations of Christianity can agree on a universal consensus or interpretation is in and of itself rather telling.

while also stating that people do good simply to help. Contradictory positions. Hence the request for a more in depth explanation. It wasn't your position, so why worry about it? You stated yours, which is good, but isn't related.

Maybe I'm having a blonde moment but I fail to see how doing good simply for the sake of it, because you are a good intended individual is contradictory. Certainly it contradicts Abrahamic theology because you can be a evil hearted individual but are excused from your wicked heart as long as you do what god or jesus or whichever prophetical flavor of the day says you MUST because failure separates you from the light of gods love for eternity.

What evidence has been falsified??? Really? Start with the peppered moths,

what exactly has been falsified about the peppered moths? with scientific references and citations please.

then look at the phony fetus drawings.

again, please elaborate. Blanket statements of supposition with no support aren't very good for beginning a realistic dialogue regarding what precisely you take exception to. Specificity will grant you a far better answer with less off topic tangents.

Add in any number of faked and "mistaken" "early man" remains, and you will have a good start.

I believe rather, that a good start would be pointing out exactly what you take exception to for a proper discussion on the matter. I'm certainly willing to entertain the notion despite the material being debated ad nauseum for years on this board alone. I find that the vast majority of these claims are based not on evidence or lack thereof but of a misinterpretation at the beginning of an adult level game of telephone.

No the actual evidence says I am right. Assuming this and that go together with no scientific proof isn't evidence; it's guesswork.

Show some assumptions then and let's discuss them. All I'm seeing so far are blanket statements and assumption from you with nary a citation or supporting argument even.

That simply reinforces my statement that those who don't follow the Bible accurately are in the wrong, and thus their position on evolution is inaccurate.

Arrogance at it's finest. When there are over 41,000 different versions of Christianity who exactly decides which is the correct and most accurate interpretation of the bible to follow? Is that YOUR call to make? One massive difference I see between a religious or creationist stance and a scientific one is that in science, we are willing to admit that we may not be correct and as such, we share our work with others so it may be scrutinized for errors. Scrutinization of biblical text has simply lead to the formation of tens of thousands of differing interpretations of Christian and Jewish text alone, Yet those who follow the scientific method are mad when Christianity itself is not in possession of any sort of unified theology. The same denomination can have different approaches and interpretations from one town to the next yet they all insist they are the truest arbiter of the faith. It's whimsical at best.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The discussion on accountability there was as I stated. Go back and read the post. I stated basically that accountability os to God, and he stated that it isn't, and brought up karma, which is accountability, while also stating that people do good simply to help. Contradictory positions. Hence the request for a more in depth explanation. It wasn't your position, so why worry about it? You stated yours, which is good, but isn't related.

I wasn't replying to Barcs, I was replying to you when you stated the following in this post:

Accountability means there must be someone or something to whom one will be held accountable. Evolution attempts to present a way to explain things without a need for the Creator.

Which, in turn, was just you expounding on your earlier statement from this post:

Of course not, then there would be real accountability.

Which was in reply to borntowatch.

Start with the peppered moths,

How was peppered moth evidence falsified?

then look at the phony fetus drawings.

Phony in what way?

Add in any number of faked and "mistaken" "early man" remains, and you will have a good start.

A good start would be you providing specific examples of what you think was "falsified" and in what way it was "falsified". You're being incredibly vague.

No the actual evidence says I am right. Assuming this and that go together with no scientific proof isn't evidence; it's guesswork.

Same as above. Can you provide something specific, or are you just going to make hand waving statements?

If you want to discuss different Christian groups, start a thread for that. This one is about evolution.

I was replying directly to a point you made and I can quote your statement & link to the post in which you made it if you'd like me to. If my reply to your point was somehow off topic, then that would suggest your original point was off topic.

^Undoubtedly she's going to reference Piltdown man and a couple other fossils that were intentionally faked, but fortunately that's why science wins. Thanks to science, scientists figured out that it was a hoax and removed it from the theory. Referencing all of those things is a red herring because they are not part of modern evolutionary synthesis. What about all of the REAL fossils? They outnumber the hoaxes like 100,000 to 1. Those are the kinds of things that need to be addressed. Genetic mutations need to be addressed. Natural selection needs to be addressed. Fake definitions of evolution that falsely distinguish between micro and macro evolution when they are governed by the exact same thing. You'd have to explain why mutations do not add up over time. I've love to hear your explanation for this.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
I know what it's supposed to explain. I simply don't believe it. No evidence of such slow changes. Claiming various species are in a line is all assumption, and there is NO proof of any of it. I didn't decide evolution was wrong based on my beliefs; I decided it was wrong based on studying things published by evolutionists.

We know that's not true. You are listing primary arguing points from creationist websites. You have not addressed any evidence yet. You are just making blanket statements like, "Peppered moth! Gotcha!" By the way, fetus drawings are not part of the theory of evolution.

Tossing out terms like "fundamentalist" doesn't help. if someone claims to believe in Christianity, and then claims not to believe in the associated book, they aren't very firm in their beliefs.

Fundamentalist means somebody that believes their holy texts as strict literal truth. It is the accurate term to use.

That you disagree doesn't mean they are wrong. Neither evolution nor creation is proven, and thus any and all discussion and debate is valid. Claiming none of the points are valid doesn't make it true. What I typically see is such claims, and claims that all points made in favor of evolution are true, with no support at all.

I'll say it again. There is no debate because you are not addressing the evidence, nor are you backing up anything you are arbitrarily stating things as facts without references. If you claim there is a debate here, then present your case. Show me your math. You made a whole bunch of false statements in your last post.

A "blatant lie"? Offer proof that is from an evolutionist site? You just lost all credibility. Mockery and personal attacks aren't debate.

LMAO. There was no mockery or personal attacks.

You said:

"The evidence really does not support evolution. It must be bent, twisted, and even misrepresented and/or falsified to even come close, and it still falls far short. "

Yes that is a lie. Just because you believe it, doesn't make it true. I know I've posted these links for you before and they were dismissed and ignored without reason.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

www.talkorigins.org...

necsi.edu...

The evidence absolutely supports evolution. If you disagree and are actually claiming there is a debate here, then break down the evidence and show me where it's wrong without flat out denial. You have yet to offer any valid explanation for anything you have stated. I have broken down the creationist sites in the past and shown exactly why they are full of lies and misunderstandings. Surely you can do the same for the scientific educational sites I have referenced, since you have studied evolution.

I have seen evidence. Don't be obtuse. We are also not debating my religious beliefs here, but evolution. Try and stay on topic.

Then debate evolution. You haven't debated any part of it yet. You made a bunch of statements without backing anything up. I posed the physical evidence. Now it's on you to show me exactly why it is wrong. I'm pretty sure this same exact thing happened last time we conversed. You made a bunch of statements, I showed you they were wrong and posted evidence, the evidence was ignored or denied. How about address the links I posted, then we can call this a debate rather than a schooling.

YOU don't have any real examples or real evidence. That's the whole point.

There are NUMEROUS examples and evidence. I posted the evidence and have numerous times in the past. If you refuse to address it, that's not on me. Genetic mutations = real. Natural selection = real. You can't just say I'm wrong, you need to prove it or at least offer counter points aside from denial.

List when evolution has been done in a lab.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

Scroll down to the fly experiment. Yes, that is evolution. I don't care about your strawman definition of it. That experiment shows speciation, bottom line. If speciation can happen once, it can happen numerous times. You'll probably respond with a red herring like, "but they are still flies". That is nonsense. They are difference species of fly and a clear example of one species changing into another over time.

Genetic mutations don't make a species change to another species.

False. My fly example above shows precisely that. Morphology is determine by our genes. Genes are genetic blueprint of our being. If a gene mutates, then yes, it affects the traits of that organism.

Genetic information is lost over time, not gained.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

Wrong again. There are multiple types of mutations.

The theory isn't valid. Pretending that others haven't done research, or don't understand, isn't a valid defense. Everything you state is from evolutionist sites.

I'm not pretending anything. I'm waiting for you to address the evidence and show why it's a farce. That's the topic of this thread. I don't source "evolutionist" sites. I source educational and scientific resources. If you think they are wrong, then it's on you to debunk them.

If your continuation is more of this, not even bothering to read it. Insults instead of evidence, I don't need to address.

And your evidence is where? I did not post a single insult, so I don't know what you are referring to. Anyways I've posted evidence, so the ball is in your court to debunk it. Good luck.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

A chimpanzee and human DNA match greater than 98%. But a chimpanzee cannot mate with a human.
Explain.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
A chimpanzee and human DNA match greater than 98%. But a chimpanzee cannot mate with a human.
Explain.

They can mate , but no offspring will result as they have different numbers of chromosomes : humans 46, chimpanzee 48 ,
[ incompatible software ].

BTW it's 95% , not "greater than 98%".

originally posted by: peter vlar
there is no accountability regarding Karma. It is a cause and effect scenario. There is no damnation or hellfire in the afterlife. I suppose I can see how you may construe it as such, but there are no parallels within the Abrahamic theologies to equate it to in the sense you are trying to impose upon the process. In Karma, it's more a part of a philosophy whereas in Christianity, specifically the last 1500 years of it, its a de facto mandate to act a certain way or face fire and brimstone for eternity. The simple fact that not even all the varying denominations of Christianity can agree on a universal consensus or interpretation is in and of itself rather telling.

Consequences imply accountability. Someone that believes in karma would tend to do things based on that belief; that what they do will come back to them. The means by which the person believes this happens will be different, but the end result isn't. From a Biblical perspective, if one follows the actual texts, we do good because that is what God wishes us to do. The good deeds aren't what saves s, but are a result of being saved, if that makes sense. And, yes, there are differences of opinion there, but those are because people make errors. We are fallible beings, after all. My own viewpoints are pretty much Southern Baptist, if you want to look those up. Probably not 100%, but close. Happy to explain anything about which you are curious, regarding my beliefs and how they might relate, or not, to the thread topic.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
while also stating that people do good simply to help. Contradictory positions. Hence the request for a more in depth explanation. It wasn't your position, so why worry about it? You stated yours, which is good, but isn't related.

Maybe I'm having a blonde moment but I fail to see how doing good simply for the sake of it, because you are a good intended individual is contradictory. Certainly it contradicts Abrahamic theology because you can be a evil hearted individual but are excused from your wicked heart as long as you do what god or jesus or whichever prophetical flavor of the day says you MUST because failure separates you from the light of gods love for eternity.

Wow, that's way off from what I believe. A bit off topic, but I will try once again to explain. What I stated was that believing in karma, then claiming to do good simply for the sake of it, seems contradictory to me. I'd expect the person who believes in karma to be doing the good because they expected good to come to them as a result. That would be quite similar to those denominations in Christianity that believe in works salvation.

What separates us from God is sin, which is simply disobedience to God's laws. We ALL sin, Christians included. What bridges that gap is salvation through Christ, accepting that His death paid the price for our sins, and His resurrection gives those who accept Him eternal life with God. Doing as we should is more an act of obedience, and we all fail from time to time. Forgiven, not perfect. That is what I believe.

Blonde moment? Nah; don't let the non-blondes sell you on that! We blondes are just as smart as anyone else.

originally posted by: peter vlar
again, please elaborate. Blanket statements of supposition with no support aren't very good for beginning a realistic dialogue regarding what precisely you take exception to. Specificity will grant you a far better answer with less off topic tangents.

The drawings of Ernst Haeckel are the ones I reference. Darwin referred to these, and the drawings, supposedly showing that early stages of human embryos are like other animals are inaccurate. Modern biologists know these drawings are faked, but they were in textbooks even when I was in school, and probably still are. As for the peppered moths, read here - Peppered Moths: Textbook Fraud Case

originally posted by: peter vlar
I believe rather, that a good start would be pointing out exactly what you take exception to for a proper discussion on the matter. I'm certainly willing to entertain the notion despite the material being debated ad nauseum for years on this board alone. I find that the vast majority of these claims are based not on evidence or lack thereof but of a misinterpretation at the beginning of an adult level game of telephone.

What started me questioning the whole theory was actually an in depth article in National Geographic, on "early man". The article included fold=out pictures and charts, and quite a lot of information. Reading it, I couldn't help but notice that all of the earliest forms, in description alone, sounded like monkeys or apes, while the very latest sounded like people. Drawn to look "primitive", but the descriptions were of people, and could have fit people I knew. Heights, weights, etc.; in every case, they fit either apes/monkeys, or just people. Being the inquisitive sort, I started to speculate. This was well before most people were online, or even owned a computer. I wasn't attending any church that discussed the topic at all. I was simply curious. Long years of further study led me to conclude that the theory is wrong.

originally posted by: peter vlar
Show some assumptions then and let's discuss them. All I'm seeing so far are blanket statements and assumption from you with nary a citation or supporting argument even.

I mean assumptions such as assuming a line of horses are developed from one another. That sort of thing is all speculation, and isn't proven at all. Assuming there is a "missing link" is another big one. Much of the study of fossils is speculation, because there is only so much you can know from rock. Speculation means assumptions. These can be wrong. Look at all of the controversy over dinosaurs, with experts battling one another over how fast they were, whether they were warm- or cold-blooded, and so forth. Assumptions can be wrong. Many assumptions are involved in order to accept evolution.

originally posted by: peter vlar
Arrogance at it's finest. When there are over 41,000 different versions of Christianity .....*snip*

I hear that claim all the time. List, please.

a reply to: Barcs

Perhaps you should read my other reply, to correct your false assumption.

I seldom visit creationist OR evolutionist websites. Study is better done from unbiased sources.

The fetal drawings were used by Darwin to support his theory, and pretending they aren't related is disingenuous. Those drawings and the peppered moth study are good examples of why evolutionary scientists should not be trusted, as is every other such fake case. Claiming these cases aren't relevant is foolish. They are very relevant. Assuming no modern fakery is even more foolish. What, people suddenly became more honest? ROTFL!

The term "fundamentalist" is used as an insult. The meaning isn't even applicable, either, because some of the Bible is metaphorical. "Evangelical" would be a more accurate term for my position. Probably equally negative in your eyes, but more accurate.

Pro-evolution websites are not "evidence". They are very biased, as is expected for what amounts to a religious belief. You haven't listed any actual evidence yourself. Details, please, not blurbs from evolutionist websites. Those flies are still flies, and not some other sort of insect. When they become something else, let me know. I won't hold my breath. Mutations don't change one species into another, either. Changes in a type, sure. To a completely different type? Nope.

All the same stuff, that doesn't show the sweeping changes evolution claims can occur. *yawn*

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

A chimpanzee and human DNA match greater than 98%. But a chimpanzee cannot mate with a human.
Explain.

That's not actually accurate. When the chimp genome was sequenced, it was with far less stringent guidelines than used for the human genome. Then, the rather large set of random and un-oriented fragments was assembled using the humane genome as a sort of framework. This was done based on the assumption that the two were closely related, and of course, yielded a biased result. Then there is the fact that some of the critical DNA sequencing is left out of the analysis, and only similar sequences are selected for use in the analysis. This is not scientifically sound or honest. An unbiased whole genome comparison has never been done. When it is, come back and we can discuss that. For now, I consider that claim to be yet another example of why not to trust evolutionist studies. Much obliged.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Sorry - you're about 15 years behind the curve.
Please note the date: August 2014


Tiny Genetic Differences between Humans and Other Primates Pervade the Genome

Genome comparisons reveal the DNA that distinguishes Homo sapiens from its kin
Aug 19, 2014 |By Kate Wong
www.scientificamerican.com...

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

genome.cshlp.org...

Received October 22, 2002.
Accepted January 2, 2003.

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press


Analysis of Primate Genomic Variation Reveals a Repeat-Driven Expansion of the Human Genome

Ge Liu1,
NISC Comparative Sequencing Program2,
Shaying Zhao3,
Jeffrey A. Bailey1,
S. Cenk Sahinalp1,
Can Alkan1,
Eray Tuzun1,
Eric D. Green2, and
Evan E. Eichler1,4

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Come back when you can show hard evidence. So far, you've shown nothing but an outdated opinion.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
That's not actually accurate. When the chimp genome was sequenced, it was with far less stringent guidelines than used for the human genome. Then, the rather large set of random and un-oriented fragments was assembled using the humane genome as a sort of framework. This was done based on the assumption that the two were closely related, and of course, yielded a biased result. Then there is the fact that some of the critical DNA sequencing is left out of the analysis, and only similar sequences are selected for use in the analysis.

And you have a citation to back up this claim or is it just something you read around the interweb? I'm not trying to be snarky but I'm looking at the 2005 paper right now which is based on A genome-wide comparison of recent chimpanzee and human segmental duplications. There were several Pan Troglodyte specimens used in the research but the published sequence was from a single captive-born male of the Pan troglodytes verus subspecies. Sequence data obtained via a whole-genome shotgun approach to a BAC library generated an ∼3.6× coverage, i.e, ∼3.6-fold redundancy in sequencing reads from the autosomes (sex chromosomes have half that redundancy in a male). The assembled sequence covers ∼94% of the genome, with 98% of the sequence having an estimated error rate of ≤10-4. Several additional chimpanzees (including other subspecies) were sequenced at lower coverage. In addition to identifying polymorphisms within chimpanzees, these data confirmed the high quality and completeness of the human genome sequence and established ancestral states of human single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). So while you are correct that SOME of the research involved Pan Troglodytes who were sequenced using lower coverage, genetic data of one particular male whom the paper was written and published on was sequenced at the same level as the human genetic material contrary to your claim.

This is not scientifically sound or honest. An unbiased whole genome comparison has never been done.

patently untrue

When it is, come back and we can discuss that. For now, I consider that claim to be yet another example of why not to trust evolutionist studies. Much obliged.

you claim scientific bias yet the syntax and grammar you use shows that you are rather biased against the science entirely. There is no such thing as an "Evolutionist Study". There are biological and genetic studies but contrary to minority opinion, there is no bias otherwise they would exclude data that was not expected to be found yet that is precisely what occurred. One thing that people don't really seem to understand is that when doing research, we often learn far more from our errors or our unexpected results than we do from a simple confirmation of a hypothesis. You're certainly entitled to your opinion and I respect the fact that you argue so vehemently in favor of what you believe. You just choose to ignore data that doesn't favor your conclusion or perhaps haven't engaged in the appropriate due diligence by reading beyond an article or abstract.

I can't link to some of the full papers and I'm not going to blow my own spot up by giving out my login info for journals and papers so I'm doing my best to try to find some comparable articles and information for you.

www.nature.com...

genome.cshlp.org...

genome.cshlp.org...

Wow, that's way off from what I believe. A bit off topic, but I will try once again to explain. What I stated was that believing in karma, then claiming to do good simply for the sake of it, seems contradictory to me. I'd expect the person who believes in karma to be doing the good because they expected good to come to them as a result. That would be quite similar to those denominations in Christianity that believe in works salvation.

As I stated in my earlier reply, I disagree with your notion but can certainly see why you would see a similarity.

What separates us from God is sin, which is simply disobedience to God's laws. We ALL sin, Christians included. What bridges that gap is salvation through Christ, accepting that His death paid the price for our sins, and His resurrection gives those who accept Him eternal life with God. Doing as we should is more an act of obedience, and we all fail from time to time. Forgiven, not perfect. That is what I believe.

As a recovering Catholic, I completely understand the POV you are presenting and the rationale behind it.

What started me questioning the whole theory was actually an in depth article in National Geographic, on "early man". The article included fold=out pictures and charts, and quite a lot of information. Reading it, I couldn't help but notice that all of the earliest forms, in description alone, sounded like monkeys or apes, while the very latest sounded like people. Drawn to look "primitive", but the descriptions were of people, and could have fit people I knew. Heights, weights, etc.; in every case, they fit either apes/monkeys, or just people. Being the inquisitive sort, I started to speculate. This was well before most people were online, or even owned a computer. I wasn't attending any church that discussed the topic at all. I was simply curious. Long years of further study led me to conclude that the theory is wrong.

I fail to see how your interpretation of the Nat Geo article(which if you're referring to the one I think you are it came out in the mid 90's and I had that foldout framed and on my wall for quite a long time) disputes MES. Earlier examples of bip[edalism such as A. Ramidus and the Australopithecines were indeed much closer to Chimpanzee than to HSS or even H. Habilis. That's why there is a pretty clear delineation indicating where our own genus, Homo, came into play. It's still a pretty generalized statement you're making though. I'm curious as to more specific items regarding MES that you feel make the theory incorrect.

I mean assumptions such as assuming a line of horses are developed from one another. That sort of thing is all speculation, and isn't proven at all.

I have to disagree. When there are very specific remains in very specific stratigraphy and you can show the change in morphology and follow the timeline with the precision we can today and then add current levels of genomic studies there simply isn't much of an argument to be made. I'm a big boy though and always willing to be wrong and look at it as a learning experience so feel free to bring something a little more compelling to the table.

Assuming there is a "missing link" is another big one.

we can finally agree on this at least. there is no such thing as a "missing link". its a century old anachronism from a period where Anthropology was in its infancy and the fossil record at hand was the equivalent to a handful of pocket lint compared to what has been learned and discovered in the last 100 years alone.

running out of room and short on time so this is continued below...

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

"Pro-evolution websites are not "evidence". They are very biased, as is expected for what amounts to a religious belief. You haven't listed any actual evidence yourself. Details, please, not blurbs from evolutionist websites. Those flies are still flies, and not some other sort of insect. When they become something else, let me know. I won't hold my breath. Mutations don't change one species into another, either. Changes in a type, sure. To a completely different type? Nope.

All the same stuff, that doesn't show the sweeping changes evolution claims can occur. *yawn* "
________________________________________________

Here's a partial list of "pro evolution" websites and journals. Can you tell me which ones are "biased", lack evidence or report erroneous information? If you can't find what you're looking for in this list, I have 412 more websites for you to check. Let me know if you run up against a brick wall.

Trends in Ecology and Evolution
Systematic Biology
Genome Biology
Ecology Letters
Molecular Biology and Evolution
PLoS Genetics
Annual Review of Entomology
Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics
Ecological Monographs
ISME Journal
BMC Biology
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
Global Ecology and Biogeography
Ecology
Journal of Ecology
Molecular Ecology Resources
Fish and Fisheries
Evolution; international journal of organic evolution
PLoS Computational Biology
Environmental Microbiology
Genome Biology and Evolution
Molecular Ecology
Quaternary Science Reviews
American Naturalist
Journal of Animal Ecology
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
Diversity and Distributions
Conservation Letters
Ecography
Conservation Biology
Fungal Diversity
Functional Ecology
EvoDevo
Biological Conservation
Biology Direct
Evolutionary Applications
Biogeosciences
Boissiera
Journal of Biogeography
Advances in Marine Biology
Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society
Oikos
Journal of Human Evolution
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
Evolution and Development
Evolution and Human Behavior
Geobiology
Wildlife Monographs
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
BMC Evolutionary Biology

Title Ecosystems
Journal of Mammalian Evolution
Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics
Oecologia
Behavioral Ecology
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes
Journal of Experimental Biology
International Journal of Biological Sciences
Genetics Selection Evolution
Animal Behaviour
Persoonia
Basic and Applied Ecology
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
Journal of Marine Systems
Marine Ecology - Progress Series
Frontiers in Zoology
ICES Journal of Marine Science
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
Infection, Genetics and Evolution
Biological Invasions
Boreas
Marine Ecology
Genome Dynamics
Systematic Entomology
Environmental Microbiology Reports
Behavior Genetics
Paleobiology
Systematic and Applied Microbiology
Microbial Ecology
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
Auk
Evolutionary Biology
Advances in Ecological Research
Animal Cognition
Arthropod Structure and Development
Ecological Indicators
Reviews in Fisheries Science
Estuaries and Coasts
Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution
Journal of Wildlife Management
Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
Ecohydrology
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology
Journal of Plankton Research
Weed Research
Marine Biology
Zoologica Scripta
Marine and Coastal Fisheries
Restoration Ecology
Ecosystems
Journal of Mammalian Evolution
Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics
Oecologia
Behavioral Ecology
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes
Journal of Experimental Biology
International Journal of Biological Sciences
Genetics Selection Evolution
Animal Behaviour
Persoonia
Basic and Applied Ecology
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
Journal of Marine Systems
Marine Ecology - Progress Series
Frontiers in Zoology
ICES Journal of Marine Science
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
Infection, Genetics and Evolution
Biological Invasions
Boreas
Marine Ecology
Genome Dynamics
Systematic Entomology
Environmental Microbiology Reports
Behavior Genetics
Paleobiology
Systematic and Applied Microbiology
Microbial Ecology
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
Auk
Evolutionary Biology
Advances in Ecological Research
Animal Cognition
Arthropod Structure and Development
Ecological Indicators
Reviews in Fisheries Science
Estuaries and Coasts
Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution
Journal of Wildlife Management
Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
Ecohydrology
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology
Journal of Plankton Research
Weed Research
Marine Biology
Zoologica Scripta
Marine and Coastal Fisheries
Restoration Ecology

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Another "pro - evolution" website and article - wow, they're all over the place!!

www.nature.com...

Nature Reviews Genetics | Review


Article series: Applications of next-generation sequencing

Comparative primate genomics: emerging patterns of genome content and dynamics
Jeffrey Rogers
& Richard A. Gibbs
Affiliations
Corresponding author
Nature Reviews Genetics 15, 347–359 (2014) doi:10.1038/nrg3707 Published online 08 April 2014


Abstract•
References•
Author information•
Supplementary information

Advances in genome sequencing technologies have created new opportunities for comparative primate genomics. Genome assemblies have been published for various primate species, and analyses of several others are underway. Whole-genome assemblies for the great apes provide remarkable new information about the evolutionary origins of the human genome and the processes involved. Genomic data for macaques and other non-human primates offer valuable insights into genetic similarities and differences among species that are used as models for disease-related research. This Review summarizes current knowledge regarding primate genome content and dynamics, and proposes a series of goals for the near future.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I hate to overwhelm you, but give this research article a shot. Come back when you understand it and can discuss it intelligently.

eichlerlab.gs.washington.edu...

Research Program

Primate Genome Evolution and the Mechanism of Origin:

As a complement to our analysis of human variation, we focus on understanding natural genome variation between humans and other primates. We compare the pattern of human segmental duplication to other primate species (chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, macaque, marmoset and lemur). Each of these species represents a distinct phylogenetic branchpoint from the human lineage and, as such, provides us with temporal snapshots of genome mutation (Fig. 2). Cognizant of the limitations of assembled genome sequence, we employ the tools we have developed during the analysis of the human genome to systematically characterize lineage-specific and shared duplications. In addition to genome-wide analyses, targeted high quality sequencing of large insert clones will provide long-range continuity to model evolutionary processes within these regions.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

"I know what it's supposed to explain. I simply don't believe it. No evidence of such slow changes. Claiming various species are in a line is all assumption, and there is NO proof of any of it. I didn't decide evolution was wrong based on my beliefs; I decided it was wrong based on studying things published by evolutionists. "

Citations please. Thank you.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The drawings of Ernst Haeckel are the ones I reference. Darwin referred to these, and the drawings, supposedly showing that early stages of human embryos are like other animals are inaccurate. Modern biologists know these drawings are faked, but they were in textbooks even when I was in school, and probably still are. As for the peppered moths, read here - Peppered Moths: Textbook Fraud Case

Please, bare with me here as I'm not trying to be snarky and I do have a tendency to come off as an ass now and again within these forums and that's not my intention. But... I want to know YOUR interpretations of these issues, I'm very familiar with both sides of the peppered moth "dispute". I want to know your personal issue not someone else's misinterpretation of the data and as it's rather late on New Year's eve so I just don't have time right this moment to read something I've probably seen dozens of times and as I said, I'm more interested in your personal interpretation.

As for Ernst Haeckel, his drawings were done after Darwin published On the Origin of Species. He was influenced by Darwin not the other way around. Haeckel's long time interest in Embryology was reignited by Darwin and he attempted, based on his embryological studies, to more or less synthesize Lamarckism with Darwinism with his Recapitulation Theory. He was shown in the end to be incorrect as it was shown that phylogenetic position as opposed to selective pressures were the acting force on embryological development.

Much of the study of fossils is speculation, because there is only so much you can know from rock.

There is a LOT you can learn from fossilized remains and the strata in which they were found.

Speculation means assumptions. These can be wrong.

Vast difference between speculative assumptions and educated guesses. I know you'll likely think I'm batty for that and strongly disagree with me but there are so many disciplines now involved in these lines of research in order to get the best possible answer and either corroborate or deny hypothesis and line of thought regarding a dig for example. It's not just Indiana Jones with a bullwhip and a machete cutting his way through the jungle making drawings of finds it's a massive team ranging from geneticists in labs across the world to geologists to anthropologists and paleontologists and many others in varying configurations depending on the research and type of site being investigated. Some things may begin as speculative or an educated guess but unless all the data can be corroborated and reproduced your going to be knee deep in the muck with no way out.

Look at all of the controversy over dinosaurs, with experts battling one another over how fast they were, whether they were warm- or cold-blooded, and so forth. Assumptions can be wrong. Many assumptions are involved in order to accept evolution.

It almost sounds to me like you are faulting science for addressing it's errors as new data is found and new ways of testing materials come into play. There really aren't any assumptions to understand that evolution is a fact just as gravity is. Sure with Dinos there is some debate but we are also talking about biological organisms that have not been around for~65MA whereas with humanity at least, we're looking at a timeframe of the last 5-8 MA. 100 years ago the thought of finding fossilized soft tissue or imprints of skin or feathers would have been an entirely laughable notion. Today all of those items are fact. For example, not long ago in Siberia they discovered the remains of what would come to be known as Kulindadromeus zabaikalicus which has very clear indications of being covered in not just lizard like scales but feathers as well. And these guys are nowhere near the lineage of birds which while speculative, is an indication that many species likely possessed feathers for purposes of insulation and mate attraction. Is it speculative? sure, but its also in the early stages of research but nonetheless fascinating in regards to its repercussions on how we look at things and view that period of Earth's history.

www.scientificamerican.com...

Arrogance at it's finest. When there are over 41,000 different versions of Christianity .....*snip*

I hear that claim all the time. List, please.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The drawings of Ernst Haeckel are the ones I reference. Darwin referred to these, and the drawings, supposedly showing that early stages of human embryos are like other animals are inaccurate. Modern biologists know these drawings are faked, but they were in textbooks even when I was in school, and probably still are.

You have it precisely backwards. Darwin didn't reference Haeckel, Haeckel was trying to find a middle ground between Lamarckism and Darwin's theory. Haeckel's theory was that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" -- that each stage in the development of an embryo from a particular species would represent one of the earlier adult forms from that species. Darwin's view on the subject was that early stages in embryos of related species will be similar to each other, but not to adult stages of those species. Which, what do you know, has been observed. So can you tell me how Darwin referenced Haeckel again?

a reply to: Phantom423

Seven responses to one of mine? Really? Not in the mood for spam, so when you can say whatever you have to say in one response, perhaps two, let me know.