A Question That Evolutionist Couldn't Answer

originally posted by: Saylesie17
a reply to: Saylesie17

Off topic a little, what about all the claims of ghosts, ufos, stuff like that. Everyone cannot be crazy.

What about them? Maybe they saw something, but to come off and say definitively that they saw a ghost or an alien is intellectually dishonest. UFO is an honest approximation for people may have seen, provided they understand that the U in UFO means unidentified.

a reply to: TechUnique

The video in the Op is laughable at best. Evolution is not invalidated because humans don't live millions of years to witness large scale changes with their own eyes. The funniest part is the downright hypocrisy behind dismissing something because you can't directly witness it yet blindly believing ancient texts as absolute truth without being there to witness any of it.

A scientific observation does not have to be literally watching something happen with your eyes. For example it isn't a blind guess to assume that asteroids have hit the earth in the past, as craters are left where they impacted, and there is also evidence of the chemical reactions involved. Nobody being there to watch it hit the earth is irrelevant, and honestly it's a pathetic argument when we have millions of fossils found, and numerous genomes mapped that show the same changes.

Macro evolution is no different from micro. If micro evolution is real and happens as you have admitted, then why do you think the small changes do not add up over time? Separating micro and macro evolution and using a video as big a joke as that only shows that you not only don't understand the basics of evolution, but you are attacking it unjustifiably. You have to do better than that. Science deniers just have no comprehension of how there is only one type of evolution. Micro/macro are merely time distinctions, there is no difference at all.

Maybe you will attempt to answer the one question that no creationist or science denier has ever attempted to. I bolded it for you. Please go against the stereotype and answer the question without blatant denial of scientific data. Then, there will be an actual conversation or maybe even a debate.

Does it prove monkey to man evolution? Does it prove that mammals can magically morph into a new species given time? Where is the proof of that?

Oh, never mind. Another one of these guys. You won't respond or offer anything substantial to back your position, only straw mans against evolution. Small changes add up over time, nothing magically morphs overnight! Monkeys didn't turn into man. Jesus Christ, man, basic grammar school science should teach you this stuff. How can you attempt to argue against something you don't know anything about? I don't get this. You are so sure in your position that evolution is wrong, that you refuse to even read the very basics about it.

The basics? The basics as far as I've been taught are that man used to be a different species. Now we are man. That is how we came about supposedly. Prove THAT to me. Prove that we used to be a different species but now we're not that species anymore, through a series of gradual changes over time.

Please, by all means.

humanorigins.si.edu...

Here's a good place to start. Looking for a missing link is so 1950s. You realize that this is 2015, and there have been 20+ different species of hominid between our ancient apelike ancestor and modern humans, right? That's twenty "missing links" that have been found, and counting.

Educate yourself on the topic of evolution and then come back and try again.

Oh it's a case of copping out now is it. I'm just supposed to accept that whatever is in that thread is true because you told me so. What a freaking cop out.

Evolutionists are a joke.

You know what a bigger joke is? Responding to the same general statement 5 times, with 5 different responses that offered no counterpoints, rebuttals or evidence, only mudslinging. And you wonder why you get flamed. You are arguing against something you don't know about, and that is dishonest. Responses like the one above are uncalled for. Argue against the facts, instead of mudslinging and you might get somewhere the the thread. There is no reason for being so insulting and condescending because folks don't by your drivel.

a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

I can't tell you how many times the moth example was presented by my science teachers and even professors as a true example of evolution. I also can quite vividly remember the illustration of the " From ape to Man" changes. The first little creature looked suspiciously like a monkey that you might see in any number of zoos. Maybe schools and universities have stopped saying that we evolved from apes, but this is what what drilled into our heads for years. But then again I am an old fart,
Maybe technically they are not now called "apes", but that is just due to more selective definitions. I bet if we found one today we would put it in a cage right next to the spider monkeys.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
I think why these threads end up in an all out war is because no one makes the point of whether they're discussing;

a) evolutionary adaption & improvement (believable & provable imo)...

as opposed to;

b) Darwinism (unbelievable & unprovable imo)...



But that's just the way I see it.

This post defines the exact problem. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanisms of evolution. People who aren't familiar with science or evolution think that adaptation is not part of evolution and that micro and macro are 2 different mechanisms in evolution. We are talking about changes adding up over time, and no denier has ever given a reason or argument why small changes would not add up over millions of generations when we have observed it in hundreds.

Long term adaption IS evolution. Remember evolution affects populations and groups, NOT individuals. If the changes can happen on a short scale, why do they not add up in the long term. If ANY creationist or science denier can answer this question, with a well reasoned response, I'd love to hear it, but every time this is brought up it becomes a game of dodge ball

Please somebody, anybody break the chain of ignorance and address this.

Short term adaptation is completely different, and that is an individual adapting to tough circumstances. IE, you go camping and it rains heavily the whole time, you have to adapt. That doesn't change your genetics, and has nothing to do with evolution. Many folks equivocate those 2 definitions of adaptation. If genetic mutations are involved in the changes, then it is textbook evolution.

originally posted by: Sparky63
a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

I can't tell you how many times the moth example was presented by my science teachers and even professors as a true example of evolution. I also can quite vividly remember the illustration of the " From ape to Man" changes. The first little creature looked suspiciously like a monkey that you might see in any number of zoos. Maybe schools and universities have stopped saying that we evolved from apes, but this is what what drilled into our heads for years. But then again I am an old fart,
Maybe technically they are not now called "apes", but that is just due to more selective definitions. I bet if we found one today we would put it in a cage right next to the spider monkeys.

Under the assumption that you believe in biblical creation, I have to say: you have no issue discrediting a modern theory based on a decades-old version of the science, but you can't discredit creationism which is based on teachings from thousands of years ago? In other words, science is bunk because it has changed its mind in the last 50 years, but the teachings of the Bible have remained true for thousands?

a reply to: Sparky63

Humans ARE apes. So to say we evolved from apes or monkeys is wrong. Humans and many great apes share a common ancestor. That doesn't mean the ancestor is a monkey. Yes, it would obviously be in the great ape family, but the ancestor does not have to be a human or a chimp. It could even be more human like than chimp like, as they split many millions of years ago. But to compare humans with monkeys is silly because they are from a completely different branch on the tree. The proper term is common ancestor. That doesn't mean that you have some 50/50 hybrid human and chimp creature. Evolution is not linear.

It was thought that if we had so many similarities to our ape cousins, the proof must be in the DNA. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24. The idea of a fusion between 2 small chromosomes was tested and shown to be true.

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

I never said "science is bunk". I never said I am a "creationist". I think the "young earth" idea is ridiculous. Your attacks are misplaced. Some posters have been excoriated for using the "Ape to man" expression in spite of the fact that this was commonly used for "decades and can still be found in use today. They do however, drop the "ape" part, even though the silhouette still resembles an ape. I am merely pointing out.

a reply to: Barcs
You might want to google, "From Ape to Man" to see the many illustrations that represented exactly what I stated. Granted the word Ape has been discontinued, but that doesn't change the fact that what is represented appears to be an ape or at least "apelike".
Many grew up with this illustration om the wall of their classroom so it is rather petty in my humble opinion to mock someone for referring to this well known example.

As for using the moth as an example of evolution...I'm not surprised that some still promote this considering how often it was touted as "proof" in the past.

originally posted by: TechUnique
I suggest you guys read this page.
Source

Again with the dinosaurs and humans thing?

Didn't we cover that in one of your other threads?

I know I specifically have addressed the "Stegosaurus" carving from Ta Prohm temple in Siem Reap, Cambodia in TWO of your threads.

This time I will just link directly to a decently sized article on it.

More on the Cambodian temple carving.

Will you even read it? After a statement like this:

Probably won't even read it. You'll probably see the website url and not even bother, yet still claim its bogus.

I'd think you would read the links people share with you, lest you be a hypocrite. Yet I am 90% sure you won't read the article I just linked, and don't read any of the others from other posters. You said in previous threads you don't need to because you already know all the arguments and blah blah! If you'd like me to direct you to those comments in case you don't recall, I'd be happy to.

A lot of us here do read links, even knowing full well they are probably full of all the same apologetics and fallacies. Conjectures and dishonesty. Nothing that is ever peer reviewed or reputable. From people like Kent Hovind or Ken Sham.. er Ham. You know, the kind of guys who get their PhDs in some unaccredited mobile home college? You want to talk about a conspiracy in science, there is a legit one for you..

Another link: Flinstones Archeology

originally posted by: TechUnique
So I'm giving you historical evidence of dinosaurs and you think someone just made them up. Same as in the Bible, someone just made them up right?

So we show you how your evidence is skewed and/or wrong and you stick your fingers in your ears and ignore it. Don't even bother to attempt a rebuttal to our claims other than "I'm right you're wrong" type of comments?

originally posted by: TechUnique
Really wouldn't matter what I showed you. Think we're done here. Whether you like it or not Dinosaurs existed with humans. You don't like this though because it disproves evolution!

Yeah we're done. Awaiting flame comments. Ignoring flame comments. Carrying on with my life in 3..2...

So our rebuttals are "flame comments" to you. The links and information shared here are flame comments to be ignored. Gotcha. Why do you even bother making threads on this subject if this is your attitude?

originally posted by: Sparky63
a reply to: Barcs
You might want to google, "From Ape to Man" to see the many illustrations that represented exactly what I stated. Granted the word Ape has been discontinued, but that doesn't change the fact that what is represented appears to be an ape or at least "apelike".
Many grew up with this illustration om the wall of their classroom so it is rather petty in my humble opinion to mock someone for referring to this well known example.

As for using the moth as an example of evolution...I'm not surprised that some still promote this considering how often it was touted as "proof" in the past.

Or perhaps you could hop aboard the logic comet and grasp hold tight of the reality of things. Fact- humans ARE apes. Fact, if we are apes, then we all(apes) share a common ancestor. Fact, our closest ape relatives are chimpanzees and bonobos. Fact, if you go backwards far enough to before the Hominid line diverged from Pan Troglodytes then yes , the earliest portions of that family tree(though its more of a bush) are going to look rather similar to other members of the family of great apes of which Hominidae is a part of. Continuously insisting that it means we are descended from apes as opposed to being apes is archaic and anachronistic and dates whever taught that to you back to around 1863 when it was first proposed. This is the 21st century where we have decoded multiple genomes from ourselves and our close relatives, chimpanzee, bonobo, and H. Neanderthalensis to name a few. With the coverage these genomes have been decoded at, we have a very good idea of when each lineage diverged and whom from. Its time to toss aside pre WW2 thoughts on human evolution and reaize that while Darwin was the first step, over a century and a half of increasing kowledge leaves us with no doubt at all regarding the origins of humanity. There may be a few bumps in the road to smooth out still but the roadmap is there, the fossil record tells us a great deal more and the genomicis seals it with a kiss. Telling someone to google a anachronism is certainly going to give results, however what we know now as opposed to what your selling door to door qrent on the same page.

Question: Let's say you landed on another planet and it was inhabited by diverse life forms. Some looked similar to each other, but clearly had different behavioral traits and intelligence. When you analyzed the DNA of all the life forms, you found that they all had about 90% commonality. And a few of them had even a higher percentage of their DNA in common and looked very similar. Some had an additional chromosome; others had one less. But statistically, they all had a commonality in their DNA and the sequences of their genomes were almost exactly alike. Would you say they were related in some way? Do they probably have a common ancestory?

If you said yes, then you're looking at life on Earth. Arguing about apes vs humans, or primates vs humans, or gorillas vs humans, or chimpanzees vs humans is a waste of time. Statistically human DNA has over a 97% commonaltiy with primates. Humans and primates have every organ and bone in their bodies in common. But that doesn't mean you were a primate and all of a sudden turned into a human. It means that we are both part of the evolutionary tree that branches off in many directions. Humans are beginning to branch off now and the species "human" will be a distant memory - but let's hope the argument as to whether they were related has been settled. Human evolution is speeding up.

Get over it already. The genes don't lie.

a reply to: TechUnique

You come home to see one of your windows broken and you see a baseball ball and glasses on the floor. You know that the kids always play baseball in the neighborhood. You KNOW that the kids were the cause of it.

Now, you tell me that the kids did it. If I was like those Christians with that mindset, I'd tell you... how do you know? You weren't there!

The clown in the video wants to see something evolve in front of his eyes? He's confusing evolution with magic, total imbecile.
a reply to: TechUnique

originally posted by: Sparky63
a reply to: Barcs
You might want to google, "From Ape to Man" to see the many illustrations that represented exactly what I stated. Granted the word Ape has been discontinued, but that doesn't change the fact that what is represented appears to be an ape or at least "apelike".
Many grew up with this illustration om the wall of their classroom so it is rather petty in my humble opinion to mock someone for referring to this well known example.

As for using the moth as an example of evolution...I'm not surprised that some still promote this considering how often it was touted as "proof" in the past.

Nobody is debating the models that take us anatomically from our more traditional ape-like ancestors to modern homo sapiens.

The argument is against the typical creationist statement: "man came from monkeys." When creationists use that term, they're trying to discredit the TOE by implying that a human magically appeared from a "monkey" very rapidly. They've been told by their preacher and/or their peers that this is the premise of the TOE and, of course, they easily dismiss the idea outright because it seems like lunacy.

It's akin to explaining space flight by saying "a rocket shoots into space and men ride it to the moon." The notion sounds completely implausible if you don't understand the processes and mechanisms by which the whole event occurs. It's an oversimplification for the sake of A) dismissing the whole thing outright and B) justifying the lazy approach of never educating oneself.

I was educated in a Christian school, unfortunately, and that was the exact approach to touching on the topic of evolution: "so the scientists want you to believe that we evolved from monkeys" then the whole class and the teacher laugh at how insane the idea sounds as they move on to teaching about talking bushes and divine zombies in the Bible.

I actually thought this thread was a joke thread.

The OP actually asked people who will only live a short time. To show a process that is in relative terms at a stand still.


A quick question..... does the OP understand how not only ignorant but rude that was. Trying to trick or embarrass people for your own agenda is a disgusting tactic

Must belong to a religion that doesn't teach basic manners.

originally posted by: thedeadtruth
I actually thought this thread was a joke thread.

I think the OP bailed.

So yes, another joke thread.

I think this one was probably the worst out of all of them.

First the video is made by a guy who has been exposed before for editing in his questions so the people answering are made to look bad.

Second the entire premise is a logical fallacy straw man argument since TOE never claims you can observe speciation which I guess he calls macro evolution.

Third the OP Techunique says he will only answer sensible replies which of course he doesn't.


I guess there is a fourth as well. He seems to give a definition of belief except it isn't the definition of belief at all. (I know he has the means to look such things up so there is no excuse for it)


We all know these threads are religiously motivated, but in all honesty he is giving religious people a bad name using underhanded unscrupulous tactics. If any group should be pissed it should be religious folk for the bad reputation he is garnering for them but I don't see them speaking up much so I can only guess they are good with it.

a reply to: Grimpachi

You can tell from the OP that he isn't interested in a discussion with anyone that doesn't agree with him. Also the OP and his posts scream persecution complex. Something that seems to be a trend in his threads, at least any time religion or evolution is brought up. Isn't there a rule about creating threads than dipping out on them like this? This is like his third thread on evolution. I still have not once seen him actually address anything people tell him. It always gets turned into something about us hating God or some bs. Sigh...

Sometimes these threads seem like a social experiment to see just how much people know about evolution. I mean it's just like teaching for me. Any time I find myself explaining something thoroughly, the idea solidifies itself a little more in my own head as well.