Modern proof of evolution.

Like many have stated you misunderstand evolution OP. They aren't adapting, changing, differentiating, they are the same. Nothing has changed on a genetic/behavioural level. It just so happens they are left alone.

You are correct they will become the dominant gene pool but not through evolution/adaptation...its by default due to human desires.

Although it's a fine example how human nature is dictating the course of a species development
If those with large tusks survived the poaching and displayed reduced lengths of tusks in response to the environment over the course of thousands of years you would be correct. Hell, you might end up being correct, just not in this context.

originally posted by: Bone75
I believe God created primary lifeforms and we've evolved/gone extinct from there. I do not believe that we are the descendants of rodents or that elephants and hippos are they descendants of whales, etc.

Perhaps you should explain what you mean by 'primary lifeforms'. Where those life forms apes? Hominids?

Also, if he created apes and not Homo Sapiens, then those are the creatures he made in his image, not us. We are not the creatures God created.

And if God wanted those lifeforms to evolve into us, why not create Homo sapiens from the very first moment?

See how your theory doesn't make sense?

a reply to: Bone75

Compared to religious metaphors ? Science is constantly learning whilst you remain stagnant.

originally posted by: GemmyMcGemJew
a reply to: Raggedyman

I honestly weep for you. For either being a troll or being susceptible to uneducated youtube bloggers. Evidence is everywhere for you to research yourself. It's up to you to better understand a subject. People have put it on a plate for you and even provided you crayons to keep you entertained.

I know it's fun for you but if you happen to reproduce your kids might end up like you. Which isn't fair on humanity. Disprove it with facts, not where's the empirical evidence (like you know what that actually means) when it is sourced and placed in front of you to educate yourself.

Please don't reproduce as a request from 1 human to another.

I hounestly weep for you
Actually believing that evolution is a science

Actually claiming some form of intelligent superiority and yet, nothing.

You can't show any legitimate evidence, none, and you think because I ask for it I am the one lacking education.

Here is a tip, before espousing your intelligence, check your sources, really check your source

You, have kids, teach them what you want, it's your right, theirs as well.
Just don't pretend you understand the scientific method

Question for you
If science and the method must be repeatable, observable and testable..
Keeping up
How is evolution a science if it can't be repeated, tested and observed
That's my question

Now I just disproved the scientific method, made evolution a pseudo,science, a faith, a belief
Do you understand that

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: Bone75
I believe God created primary lifeforms and we've evolved/gone extinct from there. I do not believe that we are the descendants of rodents or that elephants and hippos are they descendants of whales, etc.

Perhaps you should explain what you mean by 'primary lifeforms'. Where those life forms apes? Hominids?

One species of Ape, one species of elephant, one species of giraffe, etc.

Also, if he created apes and not Homo Sapiens, then those are the creatures he made in his image, not us. We are not the creatures God created.

And if God wanted those lifeforms to evolve into us, why not create Homo sapiens from the very first moment?

See how your theory doesn't make sense?

I'm pretty sure that I said He created us after creating the animals.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Sure. Because I just happen to have fossils of the transition between land mammals and whales right in my pocket. I'll send them right over. Go wait by your mailbox.

BTW, in return please send me your empirical evidence for God.

a reply to: Bone75

You're right. How silly of me.

You're paradox of Man Creating God so God can create Man makes so much more sense.

What was I thinking??

originally posted by: Bone75
I'm pretty sure that I said He created us after creating the animals.

Nope, you said:

I believe God created primary lifeforms and we've evolved/gone extinct from there.

Which brings us back to my original questions.

originally posted by: mOjOm

BTW, in return please send me your empirical evidence for God.

It's sad that none of you can discuss the validity of evolution without demanding an opposing theory to attack.

a reply to: Bone75

Oh is it really???

Sounds to me like you're afraid to explain your opposing theory because you know how ridiculous you would sound doing so.

At least some of us have the courage to discuss what we think and why. You're just hiding behind yours.

BTW, discussing the validity of evolution is exactly what we've been doing here this entire time genius. Maybe you missed that.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Raggedyman

Sure. Because I just happen to have fossils of the transition between land mammals and whales right in my pocket. I'll send them right over. Go wait by your mailbox.

BTW, in return please send me your empirical evidence for God.

Firstly
I don't have any empirical evidence for God
I recognise my beliefs are a faith, not a science, I don't pretend anymore or less

Secondly
Silly you, no need to post anything in the mail, just post on this forum, with the evidence and links

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Bone75

Oh is it really???

Sounds to me like you're afraid to explain your opposing theory because you know how ridiculous you would sound doing so.

At least some of us have the courage to discuss what we think and why. You're just hiding behind yours.

BTW, discussing the validity of evolution is exactly what we've been doing here this entire time genius. Maybe you missed that.

Why do you demand an opposing theory, that's just silly
We are discussing the validity of evidence for evolution.
Other theories are irrelevant

Sounds like to me you want another theory to go and attack because you can't defend evolution pseudoscience

Point of fact, we are discussing evolutions invalidity, no one has offered anything valid to the issue here so far. Pictures of frogs aside.


Just as an aside, I believe in creation, I know, I know.
It sounds silly, unscientific, improbable and tenuous at best
Though, I don't claim it's a science with empirical scientific evidence, that's it's logical or even reasonable, that it's not a faith

originally posted by: mOjOm

BTW, discussing the validity of evolution is exactly what we've been doing here this entire time genius. Maybe you missed that.

Not with me you haven't.

Every time I stump you guys you deflect to religion instead of acknowledging that there are gaping holes in your theory.

How many species are there M0j0M? Doesn't Google have an answer? Don't you think you should at least be able to tell me what a species is?

Some may deny there's 'proof' of evolution but you can't deny the existence of evidence for it. As for the connection between land and aquatic creatures there is a good read Valley of the Whales about Wadi Hitan.

'Insignificant' mutations are happening all the time which could be considered quite a clever way of giving a species as a whole the best possible chance of surviving in an unpredictable changing environment. Most of those mutations serve no purpose and either disappear or become recessive genetically but, when one gives the species an enhanced ability for survival it becomes dominant simply through breeding between individuals with the enhanced feature. Seems quite a simple yet elegant process to me and we can see examples of it everywhere.

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

It's not exactly natural selection or evolution.

It's accidental genetic engineering

Not that it's a bad thing if Elephants can finally roam free from being poached

Well, it's accidental breeding. I suppose you can call breeding a form of genetic engineering, but the term "genetic engineering" usually comes along with the connotation that there is some scientist in a lab fiddling with DNA.

Breeding has been done by man since the beginnings of civilization. An ancient rancher wanted livestock that yielded more meat, so he only bred his largest animals, which eventually resulted in a herd of nothing but large animals. It's not exactly what people think of when they hear "genetic engineering", But like I said, I suppose it is technically.

In this case, it is accidental, but the effect is the same: the animals with certain traits (small tusks) are the ones doing most of the procreation, so their genetic traits are more likely to be passed along to the next generation and the next.

a reply to: Masterjaden

people aren't denying the science of evolution

Wrong. At least one member is straight up saying evolution is false.

they are denying the non science. the part that isn't empirical

Which is?

people would be amazed about how much science has had wrong and continue to have wrong and make worse to maintain the paradigm

lolol...

You just said people weren't denying the science of evolution and two breaths later you say that!!

originally posted by: GemmyMcGemJew
Like many have stated you misunderstand evolution OP. They aren't adapting, changing, differentiating, they are the same. Nothing has changed on a genetic/behavioural level. It just so happens they are left alone.

You are correct they will become the dominant gene pool but not through evolution/adaptation...its by default due to human desires.

Although it's a fine example how human nature is dictating the course of a species development
If those with large tusks survived the poaching and displayed reduced lengths of tusks in response to the environment over the course of thousands of years you would be correct. Hell, you might end up being correct, just not in this context.

I never claimed elephants with smaller tusks were a separate species. But elephants with genes for smaller tusks are pretty clearly gaining ground in the gene pool. And this is a prime example of how evolution works. There's this trait, and there's other traits that are simultaneously being selected for and against. If a population is isolated enough and if there's enough changes in traits THEN eventually it could be considered a new species.

It's like watching a clock. You can watch the second hand tick away. If you're really patient you can watch the minute hand creep along its path. But you never seem to be able to see the hour hand moving. Not until an hour or two have passed, then you can see that's it's clearly moved- but you weren't able to observe the progress at the time it was made.

This "show me empirical evidence" "show me scientific replication" is ridiculous. It takes hundreds, thousands, sometimes even millions of years for one species to transform into a new and separate one. You can't just replicate that in a lab somewhere.

a reply to: Bone75

then sea creatures and birds, then land dwellers, then us.

Genesis doesn't say it was other land dwellers then humans, though. It says all land animals were made together. Same starting point. So do you disagree with Genesis? If so, why?

I believe God created primary lifeforms and we've evolved/gone extinct from there.

So you believe in evolution, but you would say it's a naturalistic mechanism that the creator put in place after he made the initial lifeforms? This still doesn't reconcile that Genesis has birds flying before all land animals, and dinosaurs arriving on Earth at the same time as homo sapiens, and that none of that matches our evidence.

So what gives? All the science is bogus? Lucifer is planting bones to confuse us?

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
a reply to: yuppa

What do you think evolution is?

There's natural selection: chameleons with the best camouflage don't get eaten, thus free to breed and produce offspring with similar traits

And there's selective breeding: dogs with squishy snouts get purposely bred to other dogs with squishy snouts. Now I have a Boston Terrier.

Evolution.

Just sayin'.

So long as they can all still interbreed it's not evolution.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Now I just disproved the scientific method, made evolution a pseudo,science

So I guess it's you, armed with religious faith, and no understanding of evolution, against 98% of biologists that utterly disagree with you. Good luck!