Evolution? The most GDed ridiculous Fing thing ever to have been imagined

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Randyvine2

Evolution is everywhere and everything is constantly 'evolving' or changing, because it doesn't necessarily get 'better'

There is a huge difference between minor variations in any given species over millions of years, and one species magically transforming into a totally different species - let alone a microbe magically turning into a land mammal.

But aside from that evidence points at least 10k:0 for evolution.

Not really...

My two main problems with the theory of evolution are:

a) the lack of hard evidence of any species actually transforming from one to another either in the fossil record or currently alive, but more importantly,

b) it requires one to believe that, while these supposed species alterations occur via a series of random mutations, said mutations would have to involve a whole lot of the exact same mutations in a large percentage of said species at the exact same time, AND these members would have to get together and reproduce in order to reinforce the mutations to an extent that said changes would continue, AND this process would have to repeat countless times, over millions of years.

Forgive me, but b) above is, in my opinion, just as if not more far fetched as some magical man in the sky creating a world replete with countless actual hard evidence that the world is billions of years older than it really is, then demanding that in order to not be subjected to eternal damnation when we die, we MUST believe the former with ZERO evidence other than some words in a book.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Randyvine2

The THEORY of Evolution has become a religion in and of itself in that it is BELIEVED as fact rather than taken as the hypothesis that it is.

Some even go as far as to consider the question whether or not it's appropiate to think of it as a scientific hypothesis.

Is Evolution a Scientific Theory?

What qualifies a theory as a scientific theory? According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must

- Be observable

- Be reproducible by controlled experiments

- Make accurate predictions

In that light, where does evolution stand? * Its operation cannot be observed. It cannot be reproduced. And it cannot make accurate predictions. Can evolution even be considered a scientific hypothesis? The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as “a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory],” yet lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.”

^ By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example. “Microevolution” refers to small changes within a species, perhaps through selective breeding.

Source: Your Cells and DNA—Living Libraries! (Awake! 2015)

How do you 'experimentally test' the evolutionary philosophy/idea and storyline of apes (or apelike organisms) turning into humans? Isn't the usual excuse we hear that it just takes too long? How about a reptile turning into a bird? Do we need more excuses or testability before anyone wants to promote it as scientific fact and indoctrinate everyone with that impression 2 Timothy 4:3,4 and Isaiah 5:20,21-style?

a reply to: tanstaafl

Forgive me, but b) above is, in my opinion, just as if not more far fetched as some magical man in the sky creating a world replete with countless actual hard evidence that the world is billions of years older than it really is, then demanding that in order to not be subjected to eternal damnation when we die, we MUST believe the former with ZERO evidence other than some words in a book.

Again if there were no evidence Christianity would be easily debunked.

So debunk it the resurrection that's all you have to do and good luck.

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: tanstaafl

Forgive me, but b) above is, in my opinion, just as if not more far fetched as some magical man in the sky creating a world replete with countless actual hard evidence that the world is billions of years older than it really is, then demanding that in order to not be subjected to eternal damnation when we die, we MUST believe the former with ZERO evidence other than some words in a book.

Again if there were no evidence Christianity would be easily debunked.

So debunk it the resurrection that's all you have to do and good luck.

Please point to a single peice of evidence that proves Jesus rose from the dead other a story written by multiple people who wern't there? Was he wondering around Times Square showing people how he rose and media missed it?

a reply to: whereislogic

You're quoting and using Watch Tower as proof of creation and trying to use it disprove evolution!!

a reply to: tanstaafl

There is a huge difference between minor variations in any given species over millions of years, and one species magically transforming into a totally different species - let alone a microbe magically turning into a land mammal.

There's literally nobody who says that's what happened. There are however people saying brand new species suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
That's magical.

It's not one species transforming into another. It's developments with junctions where a foundation is laid and 'the branch of the tree' diverges.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: whereislogic

You're quoting and using Watch Tower as proof of creation and trying to use it disprove evolution!!

A throwaway junk pamphlet from an organisation where followers either brainwash or banish their own kids.

originally posted by: Kurokage

... The precision with which these events can be reconstructed is one reason the evidence from molecular biology is so compelling. Another reason is that molecular evolution has shown all living organisms, from bacteria to humans, to be related by descent from common ancestors.

The article previously linked concerning the question "Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?" briefly addresses the myth that genetic evidence supports Darwin’s theory of common descent, as it also mentions:

... Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”29*

Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.”30 The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”31* [*: It should be noted that neither the New Scientist article nor Bapteste nor Rose mean to suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong. Their point, rather, is that Darwin’s proposed tree of life, a mainstay of his theory, is not supported by the evidence. Such scientists still seek other explanations involving evolution.]

Stubborn and zealous for their evolutionary philosophies as they are (continuing from that last remark there in the footnote).

More about the genetic evidence (this video has a bit of an edge to it, as indicated by the chosen title):

a reply to: whereislogic

You're 40% Banana.

If that's a bit difficult to chew and swallow, here's a more simplified breakdown. Essentially, they took all of the banana genes and compared them one at a time to human genes. From that, they culled a degree of similarity (if the banana had the gene but the human didn't, that didn't get counted). About 60 percent of our genes have a recognizable counterpart in the banana genome! "Of those 60 percent, the proteins encoded by them are roughly 40 percent identical when we compare the amino acid sequence of the human protein to its equivalent in the banana," Brody adds.



It may seem shocking that so many genes are similar in two such vastly different things as person and banana. But actually, it's not. "If you think about what we do for living and what a banana does there's a lot of things we do the same way, like consuming oxygen. A lot of those genes are just fundamental to life," Brody says.

link
Get over it.

a reply to: whereislogic

Using Watch Tower as scientific proof just isn't going to work.

a reply to: Kurokage



You're a liar and a fraud

a reply to: Randyvine2

What has dances with wolves got to do with your poor attempts at proving imginary friends are real??

You've moved on to youtube instead of social media post. Good for you!!

You're a liar and a fraud

Please point out the post where i'm your imagined liar and fraud. Again, You can't and wont, proving you to be the liar and fraud on here.

I'm starting to thing you have an unhealthy interest in liars and frauds! You hero in a previous thread was proven to be such....

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: whereislogic

You're quoting and using Watch Tower as proof of creation and trying to use it disprove evolution!!

Your scorn and disdain for beneficial teaching* of the facts regarding these matters and presented in those honest articles that primarily lets those scientists that support evolutionary teaching (evolutionists) do their own talking, cannot change those facts as ackowledged by some evolutionists on rare occasions when their flocks aren't paying attention or the main issues just don't get through anyway. (*: "will not put up with" as 2 Tim 4:3,4 describes it; because it doesn't 'tickle your ears')

It only demonstrates you having become a victim of propaganda and/or having become a participant in copying the behaviour of your philosophical gurus ("teachers", where you take your information from, who you trust to give you accurate information and knowledge/science about these matters). In particular the technique discussed in this article concerning the "tyranny of authority":

If Not a Fact, What Is It? (Awake!—1981)

A RELIGIOUS “FAITH”? A PHILOSOPHY?

EVOLUTION “IS ALSO BEING QUESTIONED BY REPUTABLE SCIENTISTS”

‘UNBELIEVERS are uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant, dogmatic, enslaved by old illusions and prejudices.’ In these ways leading evolutionists describe those who do not accept evolution as a fact. However, cool, logical, scientific reasoning, backed by observational and experimental evidence, need not resort to such personal invective.

The position of the evolutionists is more characteristic of religious dogmatism. When the chief priests and Pharisees saw the crowds accepting Jesus, they sent officers to arrest him, with this result: “The Temple police who had been sent to arrest him returned to the chief priests and Pharisees. ‘Why didn’t you bring him in?’ they demanded. ‘He says such wonderful things!’ they mumbled. ‘We’ve never heard anything like it.’ ‘So you also have been led astray?’ the Pharisees mocked. ‘Is there a single one of us Jewish rulers or Pharisees who believes he is the Messiah? These stupid crowds do, yes; but what do they know about it? A curse upon them anyway!”’​—John 7:32, 45-49, The Living Bible.

They were wrong, for evidence proves that many of the rulers were being affected by Jesus’ teaching. Even individual priests became his followers. (John 12:42; Acts 6:7; 15:5) Unable to refute Jesus, the Pharisees as a group resorted to tyranny of authority. Today evolutionists adopt the same tactics: ‘Stupid crowds, what do they know? All reputable scientists accept evolution!’ Not so. As Discover magazine said: “Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists.”​—October 1980.

Writing in Science, R. E. Gibson said that Galileo possessed “a passionate antagonism to any kind of dogma based on human authority.” It was his intellectual integrity that got him into trouble with the Inquisition. But such integrity, Gibson asserts, “is not fashionable now; the present tendency is for the scientific community, now grown powerful, to behave much as the church did in Galileo’s time.” Is modern science handling power and prestige any better than the Catholic Church did? Einstein once remarked that we are not as far removed from Galileo’s time as we would like to think.​—Science, September 18, 1964, pp. 1271-1276.

Robert Jastrow refers to “the religious faith of the scientist” and his irritation when the evidence doesn’t match his beliefs. J. N. W. Sullivan calls belief in spontaneous generation “an article of faith,” and T. H. Huxley said it was “an act of philosophical faith.” Sullivan said that to believe that evolution made all life on earth was “an extraordinary act of faith.” Dr. J. R. Durant points out that “many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, seizing upon new ideas with almost missionary zeal . . . In the case of the theory of evolution, the missionary spirit seems to have prevailed.” Physicist H. S. Lipson says that after Darwin “evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”

Proving the above, U.S. News & World Report (March 2, 1981) told of scandals in science labs. A researcher at Yale said: “It’s the Watergate of science.” The article concluded: “‘It’s shocking,’ acknowledges Dr. Arnold Relman, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. ‘It strikes yet another idol. Everyone turns out to have clay feet​—even some research scientists.”’ Simpson, in The Meaning of Evolution, said evolutionists “may use the same data to ‘prove’ diametrically opposed theories” and each one “puts his particular theory into the data.” (Pp. 137-9) Sullivan said that scientists do not “invariably tell the truth, or try to, even about their science. They have been known to lie, but they did not lie in order to serve science but, usually, religious or anti-religious prejudices.”​—Limitations of Science, pp. 173-5.

The original quest for truth is often forgotten as each one gleans for ideas to bolster his own emotional conviction, whether it be scientific dogma or religious creed. Evolution is not the caliber of the science that sends men to the moon or cracks the genetic code. It is more like religion​—priestlike authorities that speak ex cathedra, sectarian squabbles, unexplainable mysteries, faith in missing links and missing mutations, a laity that blindly follows, wresting evidence to fit their creed, and denouncing nonbelievers as stupid. And their god? The same one the ancients sacrificed to, preparing “a table for the god of Good Luck.”​—Isa. 65:11.

In Hans Christian Andersen’s famous tale of the emperor’s new clothes, it took a small child to tell the emperor that he was naked. Evolution now parades as fully clothed fact. We need childlike honesty to tell it that it’s naked. And we need courageous scientists like Professor Lipson, who said: “We must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”

What evidence is there for belief in creation? See the following article.

THE “TYRANNY OF AUTHORITY” USED BY EVOLUTIONISTS

“When he [Darwin] finished, the fact of evolution could be denied only by an abandonment of reason.”​—Life Nature Library, “Evolution,” p. 10.

“It is not a matter of personal taste whether or not we believe in evolution. The evidence for evolution is compelling.”​—“Evolution, Genetics, and Man,” p. 319, Dobzhansky.

“Its essential truth is now universally accepted by scientists competent to judge.”​—“Nature and Man’s Fate,” p. v, Hardin.

“The establishment of life’s family tree by the evolutionary process is now universally recognized by all responsible scientists.”​—“A Guide to Earth History,” p. 82, Carrington.

“No informed mind today denies that man is descended by slow process from the world of the fish and the frog.”​—“Life” magazine, August 26, 1966, Ardrey.

“It has become almost self-evident and requires no further proof to anyone reasonably free of old illusions and prejudices.”​—“The Meaning of Evolution,” p. 338, Simpson.

“There is no rival hypothesis except the outworn and completely refuted one of special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudiced.”​—“Outlines of General Zoology,” p. 407, Newman.

Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that. [whereislogic: see bolded phrases in the quotations at the end of the previous article, those are examples of both ways to play on people's pride.]

...

... They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

...

Sources:The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)
Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! (Awake!—2000)

a reply to: whereislogic

Your scorn and disdain for beneficial teaching* of the facts regarding these matters and presented in those honest articles

It may be beneficial for strengthening your "beliefs" but Watch Tower is a story book to help contiuned brainwashing of the gulible.

I do respect the effort you put into your post thou'

a reply to: Peeple

I'm allergic to bananas.

a reply to: whereislogic

You're allergic to histermine not the banana.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Peeple

I'm allergic to bananas.

That was funny!

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

It's not the same formation in the slightist.
Sedimentary rock is formed in layers whislst mudstone lacks laminations.

Let's do a litmus test to see if it's worth further discussion. Can you admit you were wrong here in this statement above^? You're insisting that mudstone and sedimentary rock are "not the same formation in the slightest" but Mudstone is literally a type of sedimentary rock...

I noticed that when whereislogic showed why the fossil record is vastly incomplete, instead of responding to the data you simply tried to denigrate his source. This was the same tactic you tried to pull on me, saying that all of my 20+ empirical examples of human footprints in "ancient" layers must be misidentified footprints..... A common debate tactic... just refuse to believe any evidence. The irony of believers in evolution is that they consistently will refuse empirical evidence in order to maintain their beliefs in their mutated ape ancestry, meanwhile claiming that it is the opposing side that is the blind cultist.

So let's see it, debate the actual evidence. Whereislogic showed the evidence for transitional organisms is extremely lacking, and nearly non-existent. So show a coherent example of a gradient of transitional organisms that is associated with the depth of the geologic layers

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: whereislogic

You're allergic to histermine not the banana.

If he was allergic to histamine he would be dead. Histamine is always present in the body to varying degrees. It's even a neurotransmitter.

The only reason I'm pointing this out, is because it matches with your previous statement which was also wrong regarding Christ's resurrection. It's like you're incapable of speaking the truth.

a reply to: cooperton

Well Watch Tower is a religious website and pamphlet with no actual science done other than to back up there none scientific claims.

Berkeley

A fossil that shows an intermediate state between an ancestral trait and that of its later descendants is said to bear a transitional feature. The fossil record includes many examples of transitional features, providing an abundance of evidence for evolutionary change over time.

Transitions in whale evolution

For example, Pakicetus (below left) is a close relative of ancient whales. We know that pakicetids were closely related to whales and dolphins based on a number of unique specializations of the ear. But pakicetids lived on land and had nostrils at the front of the skull, as modern cows and sheep do. The ancestors of whales probably looked something like Pakicetus. How did evolution go from something like Pakicetus to modern whales (below right), with nostrils (aka, the blowhole) at the top of the head? If a pakicetid-like ancestor gave rise to modern whales, we would expect the lineage to have passed through an intermediate form – one with nostrils in the middle of the skull.

Transitions in horse evolution


Left, Eohippus forefoot bones. Right, Equus forefoot bones.
The fossil record of horses provides other examples of transitional features. Modern horses (members of the genus Equus, which also includes donkeys and zebras) have just one toe—the hoof. However, the ancestors of modern horses, which lived more than 50 million years ago, had four toes. We know this from fossils of the earliest horses, like those of Eohippus (also known as Hyracotherium). If modern horses arose from a four-toed ancestor, we’d expect the lineage to have passed through intermediate forms with an intermediate number of toes. In fact, the fossil record contains many examples of these, represented by three-toed Archaeohippus and Parahippus on the tree below. In this case and many others, fossils bear transitional features that provide strong evidence illustrating how major evolutionary changes occurred.

ETA

You're insisting that mudstone and sedimentary rock are "not the same formation in the slightest" but Mudstone is literally a type of sedimentary rock...

Yep, hands up here. I meant to talk about the differences in sendimentary rock .i.e. mudstone and sandstone..

The hardness of Sandstone is 6-7 and that of Mudstone is 2-3. The types of Sandstone are Grey Sandstones, Crystallized Sandstones, Hard Sandstones , Carbonate Cemented Sandstones and Ganister whereas types of Mudstone are Marl, Shale and Argillite. Streak of rock is the color of powder produced when it is dragged across an unweathered surface.

originally posted by: Kurokage

Berkeley


A fossil that shows an intermediate state between an ancestral trait and that of its later descendants is said to bear a transitional feature. The fossil record includes many examples of transitional features, providing an abundance of evidence for evolutionary change over time.

Transitions in whale evolution

For example, Pakicetus (below left) is a close relative of ancient whales. We know that pakicetids were closely related to whales and dolphins based on a number of unique specializations of the ear. But pakicetids lived on land and had nostrils at the front of the skull, as modern cows and sheep do. The ancestors of whales probably looked something like Pakicetus. How did evolution go from something like Pakicetus to modern whales (below right), with nostrils (aka, the blowhole) at the top of the head? If a pakicetid-like ancestor gave rise to modern whales, we would expect the lineage to have passed through an intermediate form – one with nostrils in the middle of the skull.

They're very deceptive because they have few straws to grasp at. They can't even confirm aetiocetus was a whale because they only found the top portion of the skull and some vertebrae. You'll be shocked to learn it was a vastly incomplete fossil. Same with pakicetus. do not be fooled by cast replicas, if there is no original then they are simply speculating. Seriously, go try to find the complete original pakicetus or aetiocetus remains. It's shocking that they base evolutionary theory off such weak data and fossils that are missing most of the bones. There's no magical science where they can accurately guess what their bodies looked like. This is what whereislogic was referring to when he said the fossil record cannot match the outrageous claims of evolutionary theory.

Transitions in horse evolution


Left, Eohippus forefoot bones. Right, Equus forefoot bones.
The fossil record of horses provides other examples of transitional features. Modern horses (members of the genus Equus, which also includes donkeys and zebras) have just one toe—the hoof. However, the ancestors of modern horses, which lived more than 50 million years ago, had four toes. We know this from fossils of the earliest horses, like those of Eohippus (also known as Hyracotherium). If modern horses arose from a four-toed ancestor, we’d expect the lineage to have passed through intermediate forms with an intermediate number of toes. In fact, the fossil record contains many examples of these, represented by three-toed Archaeohippus and Parahippus on the tree below. In this case and many others, fossils bear transitional features that provide strong evidence illustrating how major evolutionary changes occurred.

Again they're grasping at straws. Eohippus (Hyracotherium vasacciensis) is supposedly an early horse, but has 4 toes on its front legs, and 3 toes on its hind legs, just like the modern day tapir. Yet for something reason this was a transitional fossil for a horse? Eohippus was only about 1ft tall, meaning a tapir would be a more likely candidate for a transitional fossil to a horse.

Your link also mentions Archaeohippus but its fossils look identical to a baby horse. This is why you have to do your own research, we can't blindly believe these people who are getting paid to make sure this theory seems valid. The audacity to include it in an evolutionary tree when it perfectly matches a baby horse's skeleton shows the absurdity of the entire endeavor.

my image upload function is not working so:
"archaeohippus"
Baby Horse skeleton

They're so desperate to find missing links that they assume a baby must have been a missing link to the adult.

when doing your research, take note of whether or not the fossils being presented are casts. Often times they speculate on what the casts will look like, despite an actual lack of real fossils to support the artistic renderings. They do the same tactics with Lucy the Australopithecus. They make it seem like we found a complete fossil, but it's actually missing 90% of its cranium. Dont be fooled