There's the Theory of Evolution and the Interpretation of Evolution

a reply to: Akragon

You always have to take the fun out of everything don't you?

a reply to: peter vlar

no... just this

a reply to: Akragon

In all fairness, I know I will never make any headway with stubborn, closed minded fools who don't question a single word of Bronze Age scriptures that basically plagiarized earlier Sumerian and Mesopotamian texts because some of the Jews were used as scribes and incorporated those works into their own faith, yet they can't seem to grasp some of the most basic components of the Scientific Method let alone differentiate between a laymans theory
and a Scientific Theory. Holy run on sentence Batman...

Back to my initial point... I know there are a ton of people who lurk this board and never post or even sign up for an account. It's for those intrepid pedestrians that I feel somewhat obligated to set the record straight and at least give a proper opinion for them to examine and then form their own point of view from there. It's all about giving them some framework to engage in their own due diligence and look at both sides of the equation. Provided they aren't already predisposed to confirmation biases. But I'm a big fan of education whereas it seems to be a new phenomena that people who educate themselves are perceived as fools who simply parrot what they are taught and are devoid of critical thinking. Ironically, that premise is typically formed by people who have never set foot in a classroom after they finish High School and thus have no basis of comparison to form a coherent opinion.

Irony is a fickle bitch sometimes because those who insist that their version of Judeo-Christian scripture is the definitive version while completely ignoring the fact that there are literally hundreds of various competing sects of Christianity in the U.S. alone. Very few of them have actually studied the text they claim to live by and are in fact only repeating what the man at the head of their congregation tells them to believe.

a reply to: Akragon

If they also think its on the back of elephants on the back of a turtle .... they can have a pass The shape of the planet is still not going to effect how life changes

a reply to: Akragon

Also some of us are going to keep arguing against disinformation, because its the right thing to do. SO misrepresentation over evolution, the data associated with it etc, needs to be battled.

a reply to: Noinden

Sorry brother I don't give free passes to flat earthers...

Personally I think they should be banned... but I don't run the place

I can put up with a lot of stupidity but that just breaks the camel's back... er the cat's

That is beyond what this forum should put up with, and personally it has no place in any intellectual discussion

Just my opinion of course

a reply to: Akragon

Well see what I described was a Pratchett fan not a Flat Earther. One is a moron, and the other understands Irony, and the hard realities of the world.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Akragon

If they also think its on the back of elephants on the back of a turtle .... they can have a pass

The shape of the planet is still not going to effect how life changes

Yeah but still, it's amazing how nature works sometimes!

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Must be the hand of God. Mercury is wrong too, it needs to be holding a broken off Mike Stand, and making the other planets clap in Sync.

a reply to: Noinden

a reply to: Akragon

Pretty sure Mercury still needs more Freddie to be epic. Thats just me.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: PhotonEffect

Must be the hand of God. Mercury is wrong too, it needs to be holding a broken off Mike Stand, and making the other planets clap in Sync.

No... You're missing the one crucial piece of evidence totally validating Flat Earth. See, god made earth so that man could have Dominion over all of the flora and fauna, except of course for the deadly carnivorous or poisonous fauna that would gladly eat us and the flora that would poison us. If you notice in the above referenced picture, god rested his lazy ass in the 7th day. As earth was made for us, he took a breather and sat down on the planet, hence it's flatness. It's all in the scripture. You just gots to know where to look!

a reply to: peter vlar

Which god was that again? There are so many deities to choose from. Its not that dusty Abrahamic one is it? He claims a lot of other peoples work as his own. He never gets invited to the God conferences, and self publishes.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: peter vlar

Which god was that again? There are so many deities to choose from. Its not that dusty Abrahamic one is it? He claims a lot of other peoples work as his own. He never gets invited to the God conferences, and self publishes.

Hell, Even if you’re talking the abrahamic variety, t could be a different god depending on which point on time youre referencing. It could be monotheistic, polytheistic, male or sometimes Female. And that’s all before Jesus strolled onto town walking his donkey across open water and the Romans decided what was scripture And what wasn’t via committee. Then you’ve gotta factor in the East-West Schism and then the various branches of Protestantism that existed for hundreds of years prior to Martin Luther and Calvin successfully instigaing their own variations of scripture. But yeah... “Christianity” is the ONE true church of god lol.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: turbonium1

Pick any random paper of the 100's of thousands of them supporting the MES. It really is that simple.

And you may believe that you have 10 ka of history as your errant version of proof, I've got several million years between the genus Homo and the Australopithecines. That doesn't even touch older remains like Sahlanthropus Tchadensis or Orrorin Tugenesis which bring us back to right around the LCA of humans and Chimpanzee.

The science is solid but feel free to keep providing hilarious examples of how the scientifically illiterate approach scientific topics they disagree with but haven't bothered to learn about.


You keep claiming that there have been no changes in the human genome sporting the continuous evolution of life yet don't reply when people point out to you, specific adaptive traits such as lactase persistence, lighter skin tones and variable heritability of various eye colors other than brown.

If we didn't ever alter our views based in the newest data available, we would still be insisting the Clovis First was a fact and no humans were here prior to 12/13 KA yet we know people have been in the Americas for at least 20 KA and possibly 40 or more thousand years.

Skin/eye/hair color are variables within a species. One, same species. Nothing else.


What would occur if your argument was valid? A human would not even be human anymore, after 10,000 years. Nor would any other species be the same anymore.

Any green skinned people, yet? Purple?


Every species has remained the same species, from day one, to now, and for every day yet to come....


When you argue that all species change, and have always changed, over and over again, while no species has ever indicated the slightest change over 10,000 years of recorded history, that is hardly a claim based on evidence, or proof. If you want to believe that scientific evidence is found everywhere, in thousands of papers, then why haven't you shown any of it, or support your argument with examples in the real world?

No DNA changes are indications of species evolving to other species. If it were, then we'd have seen thousands, or millions, of similar changes all over the world, or at least some indication of it, even once, in a single species. Billions of species living on Earth, without one of them showing the slightest change, does NOT suggest a constant state of transition, for even one species, let alone for millions of species!

Name one case, or two, supporting your claim. As I've already asked you for.


Don't go on about how many cases prove it, show me one, or two, if you can....


Your claim assumes that a magical potion of unknown ingredients would have created life, randomly, without a shred of proof to support that claim. Scientists use that claim, of course, because they are 'experts'. And they know about biological sciences, and so on. Life is a random chemo-bio mix. Nobody knows the mix, yet. But it's a mix, okay?

A mix created the first life on Earth. Evolution created every other life, from it.

When an unsupported, unproven, unscientific theory is universally accepted by 'scientists', no proof is needed. Nor is evidence required. In fact, that theory is used to support another unsupportable, unproven, universally agreed upon theory, too! And so on.

Stack up more and more crap.....who cares?

Here's the problem -

It cannot be proven how life first began.

Whether or not life was created, with intent, or was random chance, or anything else, simply cannot be proven.

There are countless examples of something which was created, by a higher intelligence, and countless examples of something random, without intent, or intelligence.

Random chance is a storm, blowing winds in all directions. It's two cars crashing on a road, leaving debris everywhere.

Suggesting a purely random event would somehow be able to create life itself, defies all common knowledge, all logic, all prior examples, and is completely without precedent. Nothing even compares to it.

What would suggest to you, or anyone else, that life is a purely random creation?

I'd like to see what happens over millions of years if you piled up scrap metal, plastic, screws, bolts, glass, and rubber, mix it all together, - it might create a nice Buick sedan, over a few million years, too!!

Not at first, though. A couple bolts might 'slowly' drift exactly in place, slowly, over centuries. Bits of aluminum form into the hood..... by random, of course.


Do you think a car might be created out of a heap of scrap metal, over millions of years, by random chance?

I'd hope not. It's completely absurd - is it not?


So why do you believe life can be randomly created from a pile of chemicals, then?

Why is life possible to create from random chemical stew, when a car seems to be absolute nonsense?

Is a car more complex than a human being? Or even a cat, or bird?

In fact, we can, and have, created cars. But we have never, ever, created life.


We know what chemicals, etc. are in a cat, or bird, or human. Why can't we create a bird, then?

Does it seem likely that life could be created by a pure random brew, if nobody knows how to even create life, today?


If the idea of life being created by random was actually based on valid evidence...fair enough.

It would never be taken as a universal fact, even then.


This theory is not based on any facts, or any evidence, or any past examples.


How they all agree on this absurd theory is -

to suggest life, and humanity, is all from a stinking pile of crap, and humans were stupid apes.

It is all based on deception, which is anyone must accept that God, or any creation, is nonsense. Life is randomly created, no clue how, though!

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: turbonium1

Pick any random paper of the 100's of thousands of.

Except thst you completely ignore the fact that 12Ka there was only one skin tome and one eye color for Homo Sapiens Sapiens. It was only between 6&10Ka that lighter skin tomes and eye colors emerged. You can deny reality all you want but it doesn't change the facts.


What would occur if your argument was valid? A human would not even be human anymore, after 10,000 years. Nor would any other species be the same anymore.

Complete bull s&@@

Any green skinned people, yet? Purple?

There was the guy who turned his skin blue a few years ago

Every species has remained the same species, from day one, to now, and for every day yet to come....

And your evidence to support this is what? If. HSS were the same species since day one with zero genetic changes, where to HSS come from? Where did Homo Naledi go since I don't see any of them running around anymore? Where are all of the descendants of H. Altaiensis or H. Floresiensis? How do,you account for transitional fossils showing a clear change from H. Habilis to H. Erectus? You can find those remains in the former Soviet state of Georgia and they're the first member of our genus to make their way into Europe 1.8 Ma also referred to as Homo Georgicus amd then there are the remains found in Sima de Los huesos that show a very clear genetic and morphological transition from H. Heidelbergensis to H. Altaiensis?
How do,you account for genetic admixture?

When you argue that all species change, and have always changed, over and over again, while no species has ever indicated the slightest change over 10,000 years of recorded history, that is hardly a claim based on evidence, or proof.

I'm not arguing anything, I'm presenting facts. Your ignorance regarding the field in question doesn't mean that I or anyone else who understands evolutionary biology is incorrect.

If you want to believe that scientific evidence is found everywhere, in thousands of papers, then why haven't you shown any of it, or support your argument with examples in the real world?

I've done it 100's of times on ATS, I've done it professionally and I've prepared thesis for defense against people far more knowledgable on the topic than you are. If given you a real world example with the example of genetic changes that led to the mutations regarding eye color and skin tome and you simply dismissed it with a little whitewash and willful ignorance. When you've posted the same supporting evidence literally 100's of times in the last 8 1/2 years on ATS alone, it becomes tiresome and redundant exercise in futility when people ask you to repeat it yet again just because it's a new thread. I'm Sorry that I took the time to educate myself and learn first hand how all of this works and then to add insult to injury, people expect ,ys elf and other like Noinden to summarize decades of combined education, work and research into a couple of sentences which is in all honesty, a rather stupid approach.

No DNA changes are indications of species evolving to other species. If it were, then we'd have seen thousands, or millions, of similar changes all over the world, or at least some indication of it, even once, in a single species. Billions of species living on Earth, without one of them showing the slightest change, does NOT suggest a constant state of transition, for even one species, let alone for millions of species!

Except that every word that you just said is completely wrong. The very definition of evolution is change in allele frequency over time. To make it simpler for you, it means that tiny changes add up over time, over many, many generations. In single celled organisms, we can study these changes, see in real time and they reach this at a much faster scale due to the scale of their life cycle. The only thing the above statements prove is that you don't understand a topic that encompasses multiple fields of inquiry and disciplines of study. It's pretty hilarious and at this point, pretty standard fare for the willfully ignorant to be comfortable repeating foolishness because it speaks to their confirmation bias and because they don't know enough to see how wrong they are. It's sort of like when proponents of YEC like Answers in Genesis or the aptly named Institute for Creation Research where they create their own science and print their own degrees when their "expert staff" create the illusion of authority by touting their so called Doctorates. The true believers are so enthralled that some magic man with a PhD believes the same thing they do, that they don't seem to be able to catch on to the bait and switch routine. See the magic man does indeed have a PhD. It just isn't from anything resembling an accredited university and didn't likely require a defense of dissertation like the rest of us studying science have to do. Most are from diploma mills or from "Christian Theological Universities" which aren't actually a real thing, especially not when it comes to learning about or studying anything resembling science.

Name one case, or two, supporting your claim. As I've already asked you for.


Don't go on about how many cases prove it, show me one, or two, if you can....

I'll start you off easy with just one, The Lenski experiment. 10's of thousands of generations under laboratory controls showing speciation and the ability of one group to live off of citrate that would kill other groups who tried to ingest it.

Your claim assumes that a magical potion of unknown ingredients would have created life, randomly, without a shred of proof to support that claim. Scientists use that claim, of course, because they are 'experts'. And they know about biological sciences, and so on. Life is a random chemo-bio mix. Nobody knows the mix, yet. But it's a mix, okay?

No, that's what you say "my claim" is. That is neither my claim nor the claims of biochemists and organic chemists who actually things like abiogenesis and panspermia. The fact that there are competing hypothesis (not theories) and that it's very clear that there is no consensus should be a good indicator that your insistence that anyone is claiming this as a guaranteed fact. It's sad when people have to misrepresent the actual science to prop up their own premise. If your premise had a leg to stand on, you would just show what the errors are in the research instead of running amok with a giant strawman that you shove in everyone's face like an angry child.

A mix created the first life on Earth. Evolution created every other life, from it.

Nobody knows for sure how life got it's start. There are hypothesis and there is a lot of evidence to show that these hypotheses can actually work under natural conditions. But it's never been able,to reproduce the initial conditions or create new organic molecules from scratch.

a reply to: peter vlar


There are 20 amino acids that occur naturally on Earth. An interesting side note is that when Stanley Miller died in 2007, it was found that he had actually created more amino acids, beyond the 20 that occur naturally. This shows us that it is indeed possible for the precursor molecules necessary for biological, organic life, to form under the right conditions. More recent research has shown that self assembly of molecules likewise can occur under certain conditions. While we may never know the exact conditions on Earth when the earliest organic compounds formed, we can say with a great deal of certainty that a guiding hand is not necessary for things to get going and that this can all happen naturally. That's not the same thing as proving what, when we here or how and anybody who tries to say as much is lying. Likewise, claiming that scientists are making the claims you attribute to them is beyond disingenuous but par for the course for Abrahamic creationists.

When an unsupported, unproven, unscientific theory is universally accepted by 'scientists', no proof is needed. Nor is evidence required. In fact, that theory is used to support another unsupportable, unproven, universally agreed upon theory, too! And so on.

This statement here demonstrates your unwillingness to educate yourself if you keep repeating a lie. The origins of life, as I've stated above and many others have mentioned as well, are only Hypotheses. Neither Abiogenesis nor Panspermia are Scientific Theories. They do not meet the criteria or threshold of evidence and thus are only hypotheses. Do we need to post the definitions and differences between a laymans theory and a scientific theory for those sleeping at the back of the class again?

You simply look for any loophole or rationalization to justify writing off all science because you don't know the difference between a hypothesis and a Scientific Theory but it's the science that's flawed and not,your inability to understand it?

Stack up more and more crap.....who cares?

Obviously not you, because that's all you're bringing to the table. Stacks of crap. You haven't even shown an elementary grasp of the science you dispute let alone data.

originally posted by: peter vlar

Except thst you completely ignore the fact that 12Ka there was only one skin tome and one eye color for Homo Sapiens Sapiens. It was only between 6&10Ka that lighter skin tomes and eye colors emerged. You can deny reality all you want but it doesn't change the facts.

When you don't have any facts, it doesn't matter anyway.

Show me the 'facts' proving humans were one skin color, and one eye color. Saying it is a 'fact' is not really proof, btw.

You state it like it's a proven fact. Gee, it must be true, because you say it, without even trying to prove it!

Evolution - the religion which believes apes turned into humans, long ago, but only the extinct apes!

originally posted by: peter vlar
And your evidence to support this is what? If. HSS were the same species since day one with zero genetic changes, where to HSS come from? Where did Homo Naledi go since I don't see any of them running around anymore? Where are all of the descendants of H. Altaiensis or H. Floresiensis? How do,you account for transitional fossils showing a clear change from H. Habilis to H. Erectus? You can find those remains in the former Soviet state of Georgia and they're the first member of our genus to make their way into Europe 1.8 Ma also referred to as Homo Georgicus amd then there are the remains found in Sima de Los huesos that show a very clear genetic and morphological transition from H. Heidelbergensis to H. Altaiensis?
How do,you account for genetic admixture?

Again, holding up an extinct species and comparing it to humans is ridiculous. Sharing genetics with modern apes proves that you are making up 'evolution'. If modern apes were long extinct, you'd be claiming THEY are our ancestors, too!

The DNA is a silly argument for evolution. It is your ONLY argument, though, so you keep insisting it is 'proof', when it is nonsense.

Proving 'evolution' of humans would already have been shown over 10,000 years of human history. Same as the millions of other species would have 'evolved', at least in some way, at least some of the species, over 10,000 years.

How long do you want to argue millions of species are constantly 'evolving', before you give up? Should we expect something to 'evolve' a little in another 10,000 years? Or does it take at least another 100,000 years, before anything starts to show 'evolution'?

There are several billion humans on Earth today. How many would you figure will all start to 'evolve', at the same time, in some magical moment, far in the distant future? Every one of the billion humans? Or maybe a million? Or just one or two? Do the other humans, who see the one or two 'evolving', begin to 'evolve' in the same way, like a 'chain reaction'?

No matter, it's all a fantasy anyway.

originally posted by: peter vlar
Nobody knows for sure how life got it's start. There are hypothesis and there is a lot of evidence to show that these hypotheses can actually work under natural conditions. But it's never been able,to reproduce the initial conditions or create new organic molecules from scratch.

Nobody knows how life started, so how do they know it 'evolved' life in every other form, from there?

Oh right, fossils of extinct species, that link us with apes - not the apes that AREN'T extinct, of course. Just any of the extinct apes!!

a reply to: turbonium1

Wow. Doubling down on the extreme trolling there I see.