Science against evolution

Originally posted by idmonster

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by drakus
While I can understand that someone with a religious background may have some difficulty with abiogenesis, fact is, there aren't a lot of other SCIENTIFIC theories with enough evidence-weight to challenge it.
Even Panspermia needs for life to arise somewhere.

Because if life doesn't arises on itself it needs someone to do it. And that someone needs to be born. from someone else... and so on, and so on.

And the concept of a magical being saying "hoopla!" and kickstarting life is quite risible.

So while there are still many many mysterious details to discover, it is, for now, the most accurate theory we have.

ETA.. The thread title is Science against evolution....Is it, if so how?

Cheers

Yet you seem to ignore also the possibility of that "someone" - the First Cause - as Eternal - having NO Beginning and having No End. An Always Existing Self Sustaining Life Form. A Self Sustaining Life Form with the ability / capability to impart Life.

Otherwise the alternatives are:

1) Life spontaneously appeared from nothing - unscientific / impossible.

2) Nothing created something from nothing - nonsensical.

3) An infinite bottomless unending number creator of a creator of a creator...- stupid.

So to me the ONLY viable and logical explanation is:

Life is a result of creation by "someone" who Always Existed - a Self Sustaining Life form - God.

edit on 21-1-2013 by edmc^2 because: un

Now that you have that off you chest, this thread is about claims that scientific methods have been used to prove evolution to be false.

We currently have tooth doing his usual thing of attempting to derail the thread with his fantasy, homebrew religion of TF. A couple of people trying to bait each other (from both sides) and a, so far quite rational debate breaking down the results of certain scientifc observations and methods used to see if they support the prooving or disproving of evolution.

You could take a look at the papers that have been posted and post for or against the evidence within, that would be good. But please dont drag this down to whether first life was by divine spark or natural causes, we've managed to avoid that unecassary spiral into madness and there are plenty of threads where you can discuss that aspect of how life became.

edit on 21-1-2013 by idmonster because: (no reason given)

Thanks idmonster for allowing me state my view. Now that's out there - what's this papers that you're talking bout? Mind if you mention one or two just to be on the same page? One might good so as not to stray from the main topic at hand.

reply to post by edmc^2


Probably a good start point from page 13. If you go back to about page 7 you can get all involved with a starchild skull discusion and of course target food.

evolutionfairytale.com...

another decent paper
www.pnas.org...

and another
www.detectingdesign.com...

and finaly
homepages.ed.ac.uk...

Four papers, all based on research done into genetic mutations by scientist studying the effects of the mutations on evolutin. Two of these papers are biased for and two against.

From my perpective, its a case of do I believe the information in the "against" pile has been interpreted correctly to disprove evolution. Or has the religious bias of the interpretor skewed the results in that direction. I think (and I may be wrong) that you will have the opposing argument.

Originally posted by idmonster
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Probably a good start point from page 13. If you go back to about page 7 you can get all involved with a starchild skull discusion and of course target food.

evolutionfairytale.com...

another decent paper
www.pnas.org...

and another
www.detectingdesign.com...

and finaly
homepages.ed.ac.uk...

Four papers, all based on research done into genetic mutations by scientist studying the effects of the mutations on evolutin. Two of these papers are biased for and two against.

From my perpective, its a case of do I believe the information in the "against" pile has been interpreted correctly to disprove evolution. Or has the religious bias of the interpretor skewed the results in that direction. I think (and I may be wrong) that you will have the opposing argument.

OK - thanks. Lots to read and very technical - becomes very subjective as the results can be interpreted in either way: glass half full/half empty.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by drakus
While I can understand that someone with a religious background may have some difficulty with abiogenesis, fact is, there aren't a lot of other SCIENTIFIC theories with enough evidence-weight to challenge it.
Even Panspermia needs for life to arise somewhere.

Because if life doesn't arises on itself it needs someone to do it. And that someone needs to be born. from someone else... and so on, and so on.

And the concept of a magical being saying "hoopla!" and kickstarting life is quite risible.

So while there are still many many mysterious details to discover, it is, for now, the most accurate theory we have.

Cheers

Yet you seem to ignore also the possibility of that "someone" - the First Cause - as Eternal - having NO Beginning and having No End. An Always Existing Self Sustaining Life Form. A Self Sustaining Life Form with the ability / capability to impart Life.

Otherwise the alternatives are:

1) Life spontaneously appeared from nothing - unscientific / impossible.

2) Nothing created something from nothing - nonsensical.

3) An infinite bottomless unending number creator of a creator of a creator...- stupid.

So to me the ONLY viable and logical explanation is:

Life is a result of creation by "someone" who Always Existed - a Self Sustaining Life form - God.

edit on 21-1-2013 by edmc^2 because: un

You left out one possibility. Life is eternal and has no need to be created.

We see everything as having a begining and an end because we have a beggining and end but that may not be the case.

One thing that is almost certain. No one alive today will discover the answer and when or if they do will we be mature enough to listen?

Read this thread to see how far some will go to deny what evolution describes. No one expects them to accept what it describes but they could at least understand it enough to avoid continually repeating the same old errors

Its only a theory. No one has seen an a cat turn into a rat. If we are related to apes why dont we see apes evolving into humans.

Dismissing the theory of evolution because it does not explain how life started when Evolution has nothing to say on how life started

When asked to explain the diversity we see today if evolution is wrong all you are met with silence.

Oh and have you met tooth?

reply to post by stereologist

It is a book that does not describe history. The events of the bible did not happen.

Then you need to let wiki know that quote I just shared with you and posted is wrong, and you also need to let every religious organazation know as well.
Now what exactly was your proof that it didn't happen? Have you single handedly disproven the bible and its events? You do know they used the names of real citys?

So you mention a few things that might have happened. I listed things that did not happen that are described in the bible. The fact that the bible is full of fiction certainly casts doubt on the rest.

Well you assume anyhow, with nothing more than your gut telling you so. Did you have something tangible, or is this rectally derived?

There is no need to test the untestable. What can be tested is the claims of things like genesis. The 2 myths in genesis are wrong. Exodus never happened. The flood never happened. The fall back for creationists in lectures is to invoke some form of magic. And yes magic does cover the supernatural.

Your going to have to check your dictionary date and make sure its not out dated. I'm not able to fine any connection between the supernatural and magic. I have checked several definitions and alternate sources but the two words don't appear to have anything to do with each other. It would be the same thing as if I referred to evolution as a god since it has created over a billion species. There is no evidence of such.

There is no need to test the untestable. What can be tested is the claims of things like genesis. The 2 myths in genesis are wrong. Exodus never happened. The flood never happened. The fall back for creationists in lectures is to invoke some form of magic. And yes magic does cover the supernatural.

I see... and you just so happen to have solid proof of all of this? Can you please show me the definition that shows that the supernatural and magic have anything to do with each other?

Your frivolous laughter simply shows that you can't even understand that magic covers the supernatural. Magic is the spoken magical incantations in genesis where things are created.

Ah, now I see what has happened, you have mistakenly taken supernatural for magic. Thats ok, I understand the efforts para understanding when you have problems understanding something. I should have guessed anyhow, if your willing to actually believe that a species can change into another species while everything on the internet is clearly saying otherwise, I see how easy definitions can fail you.
Dont worry, just do what I do, look at as many variations of the definition as you can and from that you will get the broadest range of meanings. When you do so, you will see that magic has never been involved with the supernatural. Aside from the definition that I have posted twice now and that I keep sending you to, perhaps your learning curve is easier using videos. So here is a music video that honestly sums it up. If anyone ever wanted to know what the meaning of supernatural is, I highly reccomend this video.

ET

Extraterrestrials have NOTHING to do with magic, unless you simply don't believe in them which is why I told you earlier that you must be a know it all and believe that humans are all knowing and all power and there is nothing else.

The number you have posted is in no substantiated by any claims you have made.

Yes it does and I allready copy and pasted the quote and the link.

Over 98% of documented species are now extinct,[2] but extinction occurs at an uneven rate

extinctions wiki
If you click on the link you can see where I'm quoting this from.

You need to take a biology course and learn why that is wrong.

Apex predators at the top of the food chain do NOT get eaten.

The issue is that you don't know what evolution means which makes your statements wrong.

Well thats not an issue, I understand the basics and know that it specifically states that no one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species.

reply to post by stereologist

Deer constantly experiment with foods. Showed you that before.

Any animal that is starving could experiment with food, but experimentation is never the first act of choosing food unless the animal is starving and has no target food or phase one or phase two food. I have explained this over and over.

Target foods is a nonsense claim for which you show no evidence and 100% you are shown to be wrong at which time you pull out another excuse. Squirrels have no target foods. Why? Because target foods is a failed idea.

That is correct, they have no target food here, which is why they are in phase one and phase two diets. I think your catching on.

This misrepresentation of other people's posts is a common issue with creationists. I have never been to a creationist lecture or conversed with a creationist that was not a teller of lies.

I made no admission. You claim I did. Well, that just shows how low you will stoop.

Your opinion is highly valued but its more the facts that I'm after and you haven't presented anything compelling.

Your defense of Pye is that he makes unsubstantiated claims and won't reveal tests? The 2 tests referenced in the wiki article show that Pye is wrong about his claims. Since Pye won't reveal the results it might be safe to assume that they are not in Pye's interest to reveal.

That article was altered by wiki, thats not Pye's work. I don't know how I can make this any more clearer. The editor at wiki took it upon them self to assume the skull is 100% based on the fact that the original primer tests did test positive for human. The odd part is that there are parts of the skull that test to NOT be human, and not by just a little bit, by a lot. Once again it would benefit you to go to PYE's website, not wiki and read each individual report about the findings from each test and their peer reviews.

star child

That is why you are wrong. You see intent where there is none.

I'm sorry but your wrong, anything that has created over a billion species obviously has intent. Are you trying to tell me it all happened by accident,

Already posted several times in this thread.

Speciation does not prove that a species is changing into another species so you failed. At best it proved they don't want to breed anylonger.

I never made such a claim.

Your saying that Pye is a fraudster, and that all of his lab reports and peer reviews are lies too. Go back and read his site, its all there.

Already posted in the thread.

I'm sorry but species not able to breed with one another does not prove that I share a common ancestor with apes.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Then you need to let wiki know that quote I just shared with you and posted is wrong, and you also need to let every religious organazation know as well.
Now what exactly was your proof that it didn't happen? Have you single handedly disproven the bible and its events? You do know they used the names of real citys?

I already posted the evidence against exodus.
Real cities? So where are Sodom and Gomorrah? They don't appear anywhere except in the fiction fo the bible.

Well you assume anyhow, with nothing more than your gut telling you so. Did you have something tangible, or is this rectally derived? /quote]
Genesis myths are wrong. See the fossil record. Exodus never happened as posted. No evidence at all for a global flood. These are facts.

Your going to have to check your dictionary date and make sure its not out dated. I'm not able to fine any connection between the supernatural and magic. I have checked several definitions and alternate sources but the two words don't appear to have anything to do with each other. It would be the same thing as if I referred to evolution as a god since it has created over a billion species. There is no evidence of such.

Your definition of supernatural is covered by magic, "Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. "

I see... and you just so happen to have solid proof of all of this? Can you please show me the definition that shows that the supernatural and magic have anything to do with each other?

You posted that.

When you do so, you will see that magic has never been involved with the supernatural.

A laughable comment from someone who is unable to understand the term evolution as used in science.

Yes it does and I allready copy and pasted the quote and the link.

You have not shown any connection between the events.

Well thats not an issue, I understand the basics and know that it specifically states that no one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species. /quote]
Repeating lies does not make it so. Evidence already posted in this thread.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Any animal that is starving could experiment with food, but experimentation is never the first act of choosing food unless the animal is starving and has no target food or phase one or phase two food. I have explained this over and over.

Deer were not starving. Food was plentiful. Deer experiment. You are completely wrong - again!

That is correct, they have no target food here, which is why they are in phase one and phase two diets. I think your catching on.

More nonsense.

Your opinion is highly valued but its more the facts that I'm after and you haven't presented anything compelling.

Still zero evidence for this nonsense of TF.

That article was altered by wiki, thats not Pye's work. I don't know how I can make this any more clearer. The editor at wiki took it upon them self to assume the skull is 100% based on the fact that the original primer tests did test positive for human. The odd part is that there are parts of the skull that test to NOT be human, and not by just a little bit, by a lot. Once again it would benefit you to go to PYE's website, not wiki and read each individual report about the findings from each test and their peer reviews.

Stop with the excuses. The onus is on Pye who refuses to show the evidence.

Speciation does not prove that a species is changing into another species so you failed. At best it proved they don't want to breed anylonger. /quote]
Take an intro biology course when you get to high school.

Your saying that Pye is a fraudster, and that all of his lab reports and peer reviews are lies too. Go back and read his site, its all there.

There is no peer review.

I'm sorry but species not able to breed with one another does not prove that I share a common ancestor with apes. /quote]
Evidence already posted in the thread.

The situation is quite simple at this point.

No one has posted any evidence at all that science rejects evolution.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
even if we take the value known to be false (U=3), 40 children per female are required, and then the two that don't have any new mutations would have to find two others out of 40 with no new deleterious mutations. this would have to continue indefinitely.

This claim has already been debunked on this site. First off the numbers are from an older study, done 10+ years ago on a very small sample size (might even be just 1 individual). More recent studies have shown that the mutation rates actually vary on an individual basis, and that the projected numbers are significantly lower than they expected from the older results. In fact, more analysis needs to be done on more groups of people before you can even consider calculating odds like the ones above. Sorry, it doesn't check out. It is just sensationalists making assumptions as usual when their facts are either flat out wrong or way out of date. If you need me to provide the sources, just ask. I've already done it on here.

reply to post by stereologist

I already posted the evidence against exodus.
Real cities? So where are Sodom and Gomorrah? They don't appear anywhere except in the fiction fo the bible.

You do know that Sodom and Gomorrah was bombed, right? How else do you think the blast would turn people into pillars of salt? It's probably going to be hard to find a blown up city like that.

Deer were not starving. Food was plentiful. Deer experiment. You are completely wrong - again!

Now your just lying. There is no reason in the world for a species to experiment unless they are starving. Please show me your proof of this and not your opinion. I'll bet its winter time for the deer your speaking of, which is when they do have a problem finding food.
I have a fridge packed with food right now, and I don't get the urge to start picking up things off the floor or desk and eat them. Because I have food, and the same goes for wildlife, if they have food, even if its in one of the phases of hunger, they will no experiment. I want to see someone elses report about your aleged encounter with a deer experimenting with food, not just your uneducated opinion.

More nonsense.

It's only nonsense because you haven't even given me the courtesay of learning the definition of the Target Food as well as its three phases of hunger. At least I invested some time into learning about evolution, and while you might not agree with my understanding of it all, you can disprove my view of it.

Still zero evidence for this nonsense of TF.

Seriously the only thing you have presented is speciation, and that doesn't prove that I share a common ancestor with apes.

Stop with the excuses. The onus is on Pye who refuses to show the evidence.

Exactly, so listen to Pye, not some altered version made by wiki. Just because you refuse to read the notes about the topic from the author is not proof that he has failed to show any evidence.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Deer were not starving. Food was plentiful. Deer experiment. You are completely wrong - again!

Now your just lying. There is no reason in the world for a species to experiment unless they are starving. Please show me your proof of this and not your opinion.

It’s called ‘optimal foraging’. I will supply a link for others to read as I know you wont and if you do will only read what you want to see.

Optimal Foraging

I'll bet its winter time for the deer your speaking of, which is when they do have a problem finding food.

You lost your bet.

I have a fridge packed with food right now, and I don't get the urge to start picking up things off the floor or desk and eat them.

You do get the urge to cook or combine them into different meals though. Or maybe you don’t, burgers all the way.

Because I have food, and the same goes for wildlife, if they have food, even if its in one of the phases of hunger, they will no experiment.

That is not what is observed.

I want to see someone elses report about your aleged encounter with a deer experimenting with food, not just your uneducated opinion.

You just have. Looks like you are the one guilty of being uneducated, on many subjects.

It's only nonsense because you haven't even given me the courtesay of learning the definition of the Target Food as well as its three phases of hunger.

You had a whole thread to provide evidence to support your nonsense and failed to 100%

At least I invested some time into learning about evolution, and while you might not agree with my understanding of it all, you can disprove my view of it.

(deep breath)

Seriously the only thing you have presented is speciation, and that doesn't prove that I share a common ancestor with apes.

stop, please stop

Exactly, so listen to Pye, not some altered version made by wiki.

So because what wiki says doesn’t suit you, you now call its accuracy into question. You do love to cherry pick.

Just because you refuse to read the notes about the topic from the author is not proof that he has failed to show any evidence.

You are correct. Pye providing no evidence is proof that he provides no evidence something you and he have in common.

reply to post by itsthetooth

You do know that Sodom and Gomorrah was bombed, right? How else do you think the blast would turn people into pillars of salt? It's probably going to be hard to find a blown up city like that.

The point is that Sodom and Gomorrah are unknown places. You claimed the bible was just real places. That is wrong. Please stop the silly excuses.

Now your just lying. There is no reason in the world for a species to experiment unless they are starving. Please show me your proof of this and not your opinion. I'll bet its winter time for the deer your speaking of, which is when they do have a problem finding food.
I have a fridge packed with food right now, and I don't get the urge to start picking up things off the floor or desk and eat them. Because I have food, and the same goes for wildlife, if they have food, even if its in one of the phases of hunger, they will no experiment. I want to see someone elses report about your aleged encounter with a deer experimenting with food, not just your uneducated opinion.

Now you are making up more nonsense to previous the ludicrous claim of Target foods. The deer were not starving. Animals experiment all of the time. Deer are an excellent example.

If you think it was winter time you are simply more desperate than I imagined to save the lunacy of TF. It was the middle of summer when food was abundant. TF is proved completely wrong - again!

It's only nonsense because you haven't even given me the courtesay of learning the definition of the Target Food as well as its three phases of hunger. At least I invested some time into learning about evolution, and while you might not agree with my understanding of it all, you can disprove my view of it.

Every post you demonstrate that you do not understand evolution.

Seriously the only thing you have presented is speciation, and that doesn't prove that I share a common ancestor with apes.

The evidence has been posted in this thread.

Exactly, so listen to Pye, not some altered version made by wiki. Just because you refuse to read the notes about the topic from the author is not proof that he has failed to show any evidence.

Pye refuses to provide anything other than an unsubstantiated claim. If Pye has something why not produce it?

reply to post by colin42

It’s called ‘optimal foraging’. I will supply a link for others to read as I know you wont and if you do will only read what you want to see.

Your link just errors, no big shocker. I was still able to find out some things about the theory you are quoting however, only because you were willing to list its name on the link.

Of course you must first know that this theory was written by an evolutionist, according to the wiki on it.

Optimal foraging theoy

The problem with this theory right off the top is that it contradicts what ever diet claims. For example here they say that

The OFT attempts to explain predator behavior since no predator eats everything available. This is typically due to habitat and size constraints, but even within habitats, predators eat only a proportion of what is available.

Now here you can see the contradiction...

Squirrels' diets consist primarily of a wide variety of plants, including nuts, seeds, conifer cones, fruits, fungi and green vegetation. However, some squirrels also consume meat, especially when faced with hunger

squirrel wiki
So why is the squirrel diet claiming that they basically eat a wide vaiety while OFT claims they only eat a proportion? Since all diets say basically the same thing as the squirrel diet, for example most species are pegged with being a herbivore, or carnivore, or omnivore, the proof is in all of the diets taken into consideration. OFT is obviously incorrect otherwise ALL diets are incorrect.

There could be a fine line between being an herbivore and only eating 1/2 of the available things on an herbivore menu, but you still would be looked at as being an herbivore. If your labled as being an herbivore and you are caught experimenting with other foods that still catagorize you as an herbivore, then your not experimenting, your still an herbivore.

You lost your bet.

Your opinion didn't prove it.

You do get the urge to cook or combine them into different meals though. Or maybe you don’t, burgers all the way.

Either way your wrong, even if I did experiement with making a hamburger, I'm still using food in my diet.

That is not what is observed.

Then every diet should reflect what your claiming, but they are claiming the opposite. We know, by a concise diet what everything on this planet eats, and even if we don't, they still have a diet. Nothing on this planet just eats random food or things that aren't food unless they are starving. You can keep claiming that all you want, I'm just waiting for some proof.

You just have. Looks like you are the one guilty of being uneducated, on many subjects.

Your the only one coming up empty handed, all I have asked for is proof that an experimental diet exists and all you can give me is a theory on it, put your money where your mouth is and prove it, where is the diets???

You had a whole thread to provide evidence to support your nonsense and failed to 100%

And you had a whole thread to prove it wrong which you also couldnt do.

So because what wiki says doesn’t suit you, you now call its accuracy into question. You do love to cherry pick.

It's inaccurate because it does not reflect the actual results of the test presented by Pye, but rather the opinion of someone woking at wiki, and Pye explains all this.

You are correct. Pye providing no evidence is proof that he provides no evidence something you and he have in common.

Your inability to read and learn is not his fail.

reply to post by stereologist

The point is that Sodom and Gomorrah are unknown places. You claimed the bible was just real places. That is wrong. Please stop the silly excuses

Sodom and Gomorrah was blown up, which is why it can't be found, and most of the citys in the bible are still around today so you are wrong.

Now you are making up more nonsense to previous the ludicrous claim of Target foods. The deer were not starving. Animals experiment all of the time. Deer are an excellent example.

The only time species even remotly appear to experiment with food is when they are starving. Being in phase one, or phase two of hunger is getting to the third phase, or at least thats whats next, and that would be eating anything around including rocks and dirt, and poo.

If you think it was winter time you are simply more desperate than I imagined to save the lunacy of TF. It was the middle of summer when food was abundant. TF is proved completely wrong - again!

Then its a normal part of his diet, either way your wrong.

Every post you demonstrate that you do not understand evolution.

I understand it enough to know its not possible.

The evidence has been posted in this thread.

If evolution had any evidence that man shared a common ancestor with apes, all religions people would lose thier minds and tuck their tails as they ran and hid. Of course I don't see that happening and I don't think its from a lack of interest.

Pye refuses to provide anything other than an unsubstantiated claim. If Pye has something why not produce it?

He has, down to every detail, and its all on his site.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Sodom and Gomorrah was blown up, which is why it can't be found, and most of the citys in the bible are still around today so you are wrong.

Your completely wrong - as always. Sodom and Gomorrah are fictional cities mentioned only in the bible. Some places might be real, but using a few real places does not make the rest of the bible non-fiction. Here is what you wrote:

You do know they used the names of real citys?

That's not true. There is no place called Sodom or Gomorrah.

The only time species even remotly appear to experiment with food is when they are starving. Being in phase one, or phase two of hunger is getting to the third phase, or at least thats whats next, and that would be eating anything around including rocks and dirt, and poo.

You appear to making an argument from personal ignorance. You are wrong because deer experiment constantly in out area at ALL times of the year. Your personal lack of knowledge about animals and what they feed on is readily apparent. Deer purposely eat rocks. Been doing that for ever. It has nothign to do with starvation.

Well you assume anyhow, with nothing more than your gut telling you so. Did you have something tangible, or is this rectally derived?

Evidence showing bible is fiction already posted.

Your going to have to check your dictionary date and make sure its not out dated. I'm not able to fine any connection between the supernatural and magic. I have checked several definitions and alternate sources but the two words don't appear to have anything to do with each other. It would be the same thing as if I referred to evolution as a god since it has created over a billion species. There is no evidence of such.

Evidence showing you completely wrong already posted.

I see... and you just so happen to have solid proof of all of this? Can you please show me the definition that shows that the supernatural and magic have anything to do with each other?

You posted the definition showing you are wrong.

Ah, now I see what has happened, you have mistakenly taken supernatural for magic. Thats ok, I understand the efforts para understanding when you have problems understanding something. I should have guessed anyhow, if your willing to actually believe that a species can change into another species while everything on the internet is clearly saying otherwise, I see how easy definitions can fail you.
Dont worry, just do what I do, look at as many variations of the definition as you can and from that you will get the broadest range of meanings. When you do so, you will see that magic has never been involved with the supernatural. Aside from the definition that I have posted twice now and that I keep sending you to, perhaps your learning curve is easier using videos. So here is a music video that honestly sums it up. If anyone ever wanted to know what the meaning of supernatural is, I highly reccomend this video.

You posted the definition showing you are wrong.

Extraterrestrials have NOTHING to do with magic, unless you simply don't believe in them which is why I told you earlier that you must be a know it all and believe that humans are all knowing and all power and there is nothing else.

Straw man argument.

If you click on the link you can see where I'm quoting this from.

I know what you are referring to. That has nothing whatsoever to do with today.

Apex predators at the top of the food chain do NOT get eaten.

One, that is wrong. Two, has nothing to do with survival during extinctions.

Well thats not an issue, I understand the basics and know that it specifically states that no one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species.

Each and every post of yours shows you do not have any inkling about the meaning of evolution as used in science.

reply to post by itsthetooth

He has, down to every detail, and its all on his site.

Pye has not. You are telling a lie.

Game changer everyone!!!

300 million yr old machinery found !!!!

The Voice of Russia and other Russian sources are reporting that a 300 million year old piece of aluminum machinery has been found in Vladivostok. Experts say a gear rail appears to be manufactured and not the result of natural forces.

According to Yulia Zamanskaya, when a resident of Vladivostok was lighting the fire during a cold winter evening, he found a rail-shaped metal detail which was pressed in one of the pieces of coal that the man used to heat his home. Mesmerized by his discovery, the responsible citizen decided to seek help from the scientists of Primorye region. After the metal object was studied by the leading experts the man was shocked to learn about the assumed age of his discovery. The metal detail was supposedly 300 million years old and yet the scientists suggest that it was not created by nature but was rather manufactured by someone. The question of who might have made an aluminum gear in the dawn of time remains unanswered.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Any animal that is starving could experiment with food, but experimentation is never the first act of choosing food unless the animal is starving and has no target food or phase one or phase two food. I have explained this over and over.

Obviously you know nothing about the subject.

That is correct, they have no target food here, which is why they are in phase one and phase two diets. I think your catching on.

I wrote that target foods is a failed idea and you agreed with me. Nice.

I'm sorry but your wrong, anything that has created over a billion species obviously has intent. Are you trying to tell me it all happened by accident

Again you demonstrate that you know nothing at all about the meaning of evolution.

Speciation does not prove that a species is changing into another species so you failed. At best it proved they don't want to breed anylonger.

Evidence already posted.

Your saying that Pye is a fraudster, and that all of his lab reports and peer reviews are lies too. Go back and read his site, its all there.

You need to go back and read.

I'm sorry but species not able to breed with one another does not prove that I share a common ancestor with apes.

Again showing that you need to take a basic course in biology.

reply to post by Barcs

This claim has already been debunked on this site. First off the numbers are from an older study, done 10+ years ago on a very small sample size (might even be just 1 individual). More recent studies have shown that the mutation rates actually vary on an individual basis, and that the projected numbers are significantly lower than they expected from the older results. In fact, more analysis needs to be done on more groups of people before you can even consider calculating odds like the ones above. Sorry, it doesn't check out. It is just sensationalists making assumptions as usual when their facts are either flat out wrong or way out of date. If you need me to provide the sources, just ask. I've already done it on here.

i'd love to review your sources. mutation rates do vary on an individual basis (i'm not arguing against that), depending on parental age at conception (more dependent on the age of the male parent, but the female's age also plays a role). U=3+ was a general estimate based on inputs (inputs favorable to evolution, i might add), like stating the average height of all humans, or average iq. the vast majority fall within one standard deviation.

here is a paper published in 2009 giving a deleterious mutation rate of 4.2

we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate U = 4.2. The mutational load predicted under a multiplicative model is therefore about 99% in hominids.

they used the current human genome, which is thought to be completely mapped (or very nearly) combined with what has been mapped of chimps. the study results are based on a relatively large culmination of data.

let me just demonstrate how evolutionary scientists use, for lack of a better term, weasel wording.

Even if selection mostly occurs in the germline, it is difficult to envisage how such a high load could be tolerated by hominid populations, which have very low reproductive rates.

oh, these rates are just "difficult" to imagine? let's cut to the chase and see what the poisson probability calculator says. the average rate of success to produce 1 child with no new deleterious mutations is .01, or 1 in 100.

forgive me for dropping out of the conversation yesterday mid-response, i'm still having tests done (3-5 day 24hr observation/eeg coming up. real pain in the ass) some weird/rare form of epilepsy is the current prognosis, but it's nothing to worry about.