Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

It's war in here. Peace sells but who's buying?

a reply to: Quadrivium

That wasn't even a reply to me, nor does it refute anything I said. What do you think that paper is saying?

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Hmmmm.... I wonder who it was that said "Evolution Just Is. End of story!"
Oh! that was you, lol, you are a hypocrite.
You don't understand philosophy or human nature.
You are out of your league.
You get too emotional when you think someone is threating your religion, and you try to attack, thinking you have the other person pegged.
Childish.

You are STILL harping on your own dishonesty. Unbelievable. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Oh wait, that's optional right?

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Barcs

Any comment on any evidence that I posted for you?

talkorigins.com...
Ha Ha, Proof that "talk origins" is a made for profit organization.

biologywise.com...
Mutation does not equal evolution as you stated in another thread.

en.wikipedia.org...
This is the the opening statement to this wikipedia "This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness."

humanorigins.si.edu...
Artist renditions of what they believe (faith) our predecessors looked like.

en.wikipedia.org...
All examples of microevolution. Flies ore still flies, viruses are still viruses etc.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
The first and last pages were unimpressive. I will look further, when time permits, as there are hints that there maybe something worth commenting on in-between.

LMAO @ this silly dishonest bull#. You basically just made a bunch of WEAK excuses to IGNORE it all. Pathetic. You are as bad as Coop. You could go back in a time machine and have it proved right in front of your face and you'd STILL deny it. You have NO standards at all.

1. Talkorigins backs up every claim with scientific resources and peer reviewed papers. You refuted absolutely nothing.

2. Beneficial mutation is a huge part of evolution.

3. You try to exploit semantics and dismissing an entire list of transitional fossils over one line in the beginning. Of course the fossil record isn't complete, LMFAO!!!! It's impossible to have a fossil of every single organisms to ever walk the planet.

4. Micro evolution IS evolution, I already explained it, but you are a liar so it doesn't really matter to you.

This is why I said that all of the evidence TOGETHER supports evolution, not ONE SINGLE piece. Just as I predicted you dismissed it all by individually isolating each one and pretending that each individual piece has to prove the entire theory.

So you refuted zilch and just finger waved it all away. Bravo sir, you are brilliant and should head to academia right now and claim your nobel prize. LMFAO!!!!!! How do you even believe yourself at this point?

originally posted by: Barcs

3. You try to exploit semantics and dismissing an entire list of transitional fossils over one line in the beginning. Of course the fossil record isn't complete, LMFAO!!!! It's impossible to have a fossil of every single organisms to ever walk the planet.

Lol how about just one complete fossil between humans and their predecessor? Just one complete fossil showing that it may have been a possibility that humans evolved from some ape-like creature. But there's none. Despite supposedly 10s of millions of years of these intermediate humanoids walking around, we can't find one single complete fossil of their existence?!

Wake up. Evolution is a lie. You're a child of God. Time to start taking responsibility for your actions.

It would be very beneficial to you to read a book other than the bible.

Producing fossils is incredibly difficult. When an organism dies, the vast majority are scavenged, and almost all the rest rot. An organism has to die in the right place to have any chance of fossilisation - an oxygen-free environment in a medium that will eventually compact and mineralise the subject. And then you have to find it.

Of all the animals that have been fossilised most are probably still not found, some inadvertently destroyed and some may never be discovered. On top of this, despite what you may think, the earth does shift quite a lot over dozens of millions of years, so finding a perfectly preserved fossil in one place is incredibly rare.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
It would be very beneficial to you to read a book other than the bible.

Just because someone believes different than you doesn't mean they have a myopic world view. I have dabbled with sciences of all kinds. I usually don't care about my accolades, nor do I think it proves anything, but since you brought it up, I have a degree in neuroscience and chemistry, and also regularly read into empirical evidence for astronomy, nuclear physics, relativity theory, electromagnetism, archaeology, mycology, biology, medicine, quantum physics, quantum biology, etc. I also am decently versed in Greek Philosophy and mythology, Sumerian history, Hinduism, Bhagavad Gita, Hermetic philosophy, Buddhism, Taoism, Alchemy, Gnosticism, Egyptian mysticism, I've even read a considerable portion of the Quran, Hippie philosophy and egalitarianism, self-sustainability, renewable energy, Freudian and Jungian psychology and so on.

I have dedicated my life to discovering the truth. You think because I realize Christ as the fundamental pillar of reality that I am merely acting out blind belief, but I came to my beliefs through rational discourse, tasting all sort of flavors of philosophy, science, and love. You assume I have tunnel vision and only read the bible because you have a bigoted prejudice against Christians. We are all in this together, I only want the truth. I promise I am not misleading, but am only expressing what I have felt and come to know in the most lucid way I possibly can. I want to share the freedom that I have found with others, and that first involves removing them from the cave of material reductionism.

a reply to: TerraLiga

So there's an explanation for all problems that come with evolution.

Why isn't that a surprise.

a reply to: cooperton

All of this apparent education and yet you fall back on the theories of the uneducated. Maybe you needed better teachers or a better university?

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

All of this apparent education and yet you fall back on the theories of the uneducated. Maybe you needed better teachers or a better university?

Dude you're extremely bigoted. So is the person who gave you a star. Where did you learn this superiority complex? Survival of the fittest summer camp for kidz???



Evolutionary theory has no empirical evidence that it occurs, so should I call it the theory of the blind believers? The church of the hopeless scientists? The theory where your great uncle is a mutant fish that waddled onto land somehow without lungs?

a reply to: cooperton

I’m afraid it’s fact. In the past, the development of every civilisation has had religion as its driver and organisation (there have been countless religions and gods, so I genuinely have no idea what makes you think yours is best! Is it survival of the fittest by any chance???)

Over time, as the quality of education and the ability to be free-thinkers in a society reduces the influence of religion over its people. The higher educated - generally speaking - reject or at least reduce the requirement for religion in their lives.

At one time 100% of a populace followed a religion, now that number is between 30-50% depending on where you make your study. The standards of teaching and education have risen, the number of the religious has fallen (but is still high in less well developed countries and the southern states of America) so my claim is valid.

originally posted by: cooperton

Evolutionary theory has no empirical evidence that it occurs, so should I call it the theory of the blind believers? The church of the hopeless scientists? The theory where your great uncle is a mutant fish that waddled onto land somehow without lungs?

Go to a radioactive environment and adapt yourself!

This joke is brought to you by your local scientist.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

3. You try to exploit semantics and dismissing an entire list of transitional fossils over one line in the beginning. Of course the fossil record isn't complete, LMFAO!!!! It's impossible to have a fossil of every single organisms to ever walk the planet.

Lol how about just one complete fossil between humans and their predecessor? Just one complete fossil showing that it may have been a possibility that humans evolved from some ape-like creature. But there's none. Despite supposedly 10s of millions of years of these intermediate humanoids walking around, we can't find one single complete fossil of their existence?!

Wake up. Evolution is a lie. You're a child of God. Time to start taking responsibility for your actions.

Again, that's irrelevant. Not having every single fossil from every single species doesn't make what we DO have wrong. Completely unfounded nonsense, yet again demonstrating you still don't even understand the basics and you keep accusing people of bigotry for pointing out your dishonest lies and fallacies.

originally posted by: Barcs

Again, that's irrelevant. Not having every single fossil from every single species doesn't make what we DO have wrong.

What do we have though? We have no complete transitional fossils between the theorized ape-like creature that humans evolved from. Not one single unambiguous fossil. You would expect for at least one complete fossil to have been discovered by now since these transitional species were theorized to be living for about 25 million years!

You can't find one complete example of a transitional species between humans and their ape-like predecessors, but here are some empirical samples that show that the evolutionary timeline is wayyy off:





Anyone interested in more can research "ooparts", they're artifacts that show that the evolutionary timeline is wrong.

originally posted by: Skyfox81

originally posted by: turbonium1
The scientific method studies all of the available evidence, to either support, or reject, their theories.

Does 'evolution' study all the available evidence, then?

Living species are evidence, their offspring are evidence too. Every previous generation of a species, which we have known to exist earlier on, are evidence.

I agree, otherwise other people can replicate their studies and prove them right or wrong. Such as Genome studies.

Us humans who cultivate dog breeds, this is small game timewise.

Us Humans being 'Humans' are small game.... 'TimeWise!!!"

A theory that suggests all species 'evolve' into other species, continually, should consider the available evidence I noted above, and see how their theory is nonsensical. Since no species indicate any 'evolution' into other species, never have, never do today, never will in future

What evidence do you have to support this?? Apart from assertions? Honestly? No hate here.

Humans have lived with many species which became extinct. They did not 'evolve' into another species, either. The species was gone, no 'evolving' happens when a species becomes extinct. The species is simply gone, period.

Sad truth here is.... i believe that we did what the British tried to do with the Scotts. (Braveheart Movie) [Breed them out!!]

If 'evolution' was truly about studying available evidence, the best, most absolute, most abundant evidence, is right in front of them. They are utter frauds, obviously.

Truly, I mean no offence or negativity. But is there any honest, scientific, reason, why evolution.... the fact not the theory is wrong?

Lets discuss like adults.

To suggest a theory, which claims that all species which live on Earth today, 'evolved' from entirely different species, long ago, which were our 'ancestors'? Which claims that every species on Earth today, came into existence by a transformation, from other species which existed on Earth, which also came into existence by a transformation from another species, and so on...?

And you ask me what is wrong about that?

The scientific method was once revered like the Bible, it was the very foundation, for all the sciences. It stated how science was used, how it was never used, how everything was based on the evidence, which led us on the path of knowledge, and the truth.

Evidence is the foundation of science, or should be, and nothing else is more important to science, than evidence.

So, when we have a science. or claimed as science, which is not only avoiding evidence, but is deliberately ignoring evidence, everywhere on Earth, which are millions of species that live today.....it is not science, it is actually the complete opposite of science.

To me, science must be about truth, about knowledge, the desire to know what is true, how it came to exist, why it exists as it does, and........

Holding up the scientific method, we look at all of the available evidence, if any exists, without a doubt.

Would we ever see an investigation of a murder, which deliberately ignores all of the available evidence, at the scene of the crime. And later on, they all claim it was a valid investigation, never mention all the evidence at the murder scene, as if it never even existed, while holding up something else, calling it 'evidence', which proves it was not murder, it was actually a suicide??

They hold up a 'suicide note' that was found in a schoolyard two miles from his house, which was linked to him, by sharing a slanting 'e', found in both his own handwriting, and in the handwritten suicide note, as well.

They match up his slanting 'e', to the suicide note, and conclude it was a suicide.


Nobody would ever accept such an investigation is legit, would they? No, of course not.


Why would you accept an investigation of how species came to exist on Earth, where the very evidence is ignored, to hold up something not living, trying to link it with living species?

Your idea of 'proof' is holding up an extinct species, which looks similar to living species, and claiming it is 'very likely' it's ancient ancestor. And you link them with some DNA shared by both species, to 'confirm' your findings are valid.


It's supported by countless other papers, which link other species to yours, as well.



That is not science, it is a travesty, under the false label of being a'science'.

a reply to: Barcs

LOL

yet the most important one that would be proving the whole theory man evolved from apes..


..none.

Evolution has proven that the greatest amount of evidence doesn't matter, if nobody realizes it exists, and never mentioning it exists, either. And if they see no evidence, you can then create the evidence.


This theory is total bs, yet it still works

a reply to: Barcs

That wasn't even a reply to me, nor does it refute anything I said. What do you think that paper is saying?

Wrong again.
You are making this a habit.
At least read the post before commenting, I even put the link in the post for you. Here it is again:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I told you before about my hypothesis on the purpose of evolution. The purpose is survival. Life was given all the information it needed to survive.
When the environment changes or there is increase competition for a food source, life will adapt. It is an involuntary change. The body senses a change on a molecular level and starts adapting accordingly.
Your response at the time:

I disagree with the notion that mutations are voluntary, or a result of the body reacting to the environment. No scientific study has ever suggested that. Some mutations are small, they aren't noticed for thousands of generations until they combine with other mutations. They aren't just one-lifetime changes that are determined by a consciousness. If that were the case, I'd expect a lot more big changes, rather than tiny changes that add up over hundreds of thousands of years.

From a non scientific perspective, I do like that idea. I agree that we have a lot more control over our own bodies than many folks realize. The brain is incredibly powerful, but I'm not convinced it would choose so many small insignificant mutations that eventually make a big difference over millions of generations. You'd also have to consider the evolution of bacteria, viruses, and other microscopic organisms that are not conscious and do not have a brain. How does it work in this case. What would be the actual mechanism for replicating the new genetic code if not causes by one of the other factors? I'll admit that this is a pretty interesting hypothesis, however. Do you have any reading material I could check out?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Even though I didn't have anything solid to back up my hypothesis, at the time, you still showed interest. I have always remembered that post and I admired you for it.
A short while back I ran across a paper and I thought of you and this thread (well part 1). Then, oddly enough, Akragon started the thread back up with part 2.
The paper is here, if you would like to give it a go.

What do I think it is saying?

Look at the bold underlined section of your above post.

Get it?

Here, I will help you again:

Mutation is still viewed as probabilistic, not deterministic, but we argue that regulated mutagenesis mechanisms greatly increase the probability that the useful mutations will occur at the right time, thus increasing an organism’s ability to evolve and, possibly, in the right places. Assumptions about the constant, gradual, clock-like, and environmentally blind nature of mutation are ready for retirement.

here

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

Ooo look one of those claims. You will need to prove my dishonesty neighbour.

Not a problem.
I stated in the post, you replied to, the following:
"Again, why do you assume my faith of choice? Where have I ever claimed my faith or my God on this thread?
Unlike what you claim, I actually don't mention my faith in these threads. People like you, with no other rebuttal, like to try and use it as a weapon.
You then go on to prove my point entirely:

I don't need to assume your faith. Your posting has revealed it. You are Abrahamic . You have cited creationist dogma. I don't need to assume anything. I'm a researcher, I researched your posting here. The conclusion and in your OWN words. You are a Christian who does not go to church.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum You are part of the Abrahamic branch of human spirituality.

One is not limited to just this thread, to research afteral.

So the dishonest would be yours, as you are apparently trying to deny, following the God of Abraham.

I hate to use the word but are you some sort of simpleton?
Have you seen my Avatar?
Where it says: Mood
How about my "title"?
My signature?
When I come to these threads I do not mention my religion and I do not cite from religious sites.
Did you find that in all that boring, wasted research?

Further you are using the fallacy of implied emotion in the written word. You can't prove my emoptional state, thus you are making it up.

On top of this, you think my religion is being threatened here? By this I can only assume you think my religion is Science? Its my Day job. My religion is called *Senistrognata (“Ancestral Customs” in reconstructed proto-Celtic), it is polytheistic, it is anamistic, it has ancestor worship. But its not science. No I'm a chemist and a Bioinformaticist by day.

So again you are the dishonest one here.

As for understanding philosophy and human nature? Being out of my league? Nah. The P in my PhD stands for Philosophy.

PhD?

The one who is out of their league here would be you.

If you say so friend. I think some people would disagree though.

You can't debate the science, so you attack the man. However, that would be human nature for someone in a position of weakness, such as yourself.

You, the attacker of everyone's faith (but your own) actually just said that........REMARKABLE.
I am here for the scientific debate, yet all you have done is attack religion. Is your scientific argument really THAT weak?
Try again my friend.

a reply to: Barcs

Whoah, maybe you are righ........
WAIT, Wait...........

Nope, you are wrong again.

1. Talkorigins backs up every claim with scientific resources and peer reviewed papers. You refuted absolutely nothing.

That may be the case, yet that is not what you provided in your link. LOL click on it.....go ahead.
It is bad when someone provides a link and you do not at least look at what they provided.
It is terrible when you provide a link and do not at least look at it before providing it.

2. Beneficial mutation is a huge part of evolution.

There is no proof on the link you provided. It is an article on mutation and Evolution, there are no scientific resources or peer reviewed papers.

3. You try to exploit semantics and dismissing an entire list of transitional fossils over one line in the beginning. Of course the fossil record isn't complete, LMFAO!!!! It's impossible to have a fossil of every single organisms to ever walk the planet.

You are right on this one, it will never be complete because they are doing the science wrong. They are trying to make the evidence fit the theory instead of adjusting the theory to fit the evidence.
In truth, I did not go further than the third paragraph on this link. There was no need.
Take this snippet as an example:

For instance, the well-known Archaeopteryx is a transitional form between non-avian dinosaurs and birds, but it is not the most recent common ancestor of all birds nor is it a direct ancestor of any species of bird alive today. Rather, it is considered an extinct close evolutionary "cousin" to the direct ancestors

en.wikipedia.org...
There are several large problems with the theropod dinosaurs to birds hypothesis yet they don't mention them.......WHY?

4. Micro evolution IS evolution, I already explained it, but you are a liar so it doesn't really matter to you.

Yes, micro evolution is evolution (adaptation), I never claimed it wasn't....so who is the liar? Macro evolution is not as we have no good proof it occurs above the species level , only speculation and assumption. Which is not how science is supposed to work.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

All of this apparent education and yet you fall back on the theories of the uneducated. Maybe you needed better teachers or a better university?

This was an extraordinarily uneducated post, at least where Christians are concerned.