Science against evolution

reply to post by iterationzero

You still don't understand the difference between evidence and proof. Why should anything you say be taken the least bit seriously when you can't even grasp that most basic concept of science?

I understand all of it, I'm just not a sucker for believing in it.

reply to post by itsthetooth

There is no science in evolution. The only thing they have uncovered is that species stop breeding, which is not proof that I share a common ancestor with apes

Tooth proves once again they have no idea what evolution means.

I have seen assumptions that evolution is proof of diversity, but there is no proof, only assumption.
I have seen assumptions that a species can change into another species, again just assumption with no proof.
I have seen assumptions that any and all changes are all working together to organize this process known as evolution.

Once again Tooth proves that they have no idea what evolution means.

The sites I have been sent to by former ATS users, all explain that assumptions are made for this process to work. It would have been nicer if they actually worked off facts rather than assumptions.

Pointless.

Target Food proves that intelligence was present for the instinct that all species have, its just that evolution makes no claims about how this instinct gets transfered to any of them. The instinctive nature is present in every single diet observed. Species not only know what to eat, but they also know what not to eat, to make it even stranger, they all eat the same thing. So there is no way that a higher intelligence isn't at work in this. There is no power of evolution that can explain or afford these events without intelligence present.

TF is a failure as proved many times.

I have never seen any part of the bible that claims its contents to be fiction, sorry. I think your working off the master code of evolution, which is assuming.

Pointless. Fictional books do not state they are fiction. The bible is demonstrably fiction.

A lot of the things that evolution claim to happen, do actually happen, there is just no proof that there is any connection to it and this process known to be evolution. The only proven connection is the author.

The authors of evolution just liked to find some patterns and claim them to be part of evolution, in that case you might as well say that everything is part of evolution, with no proof.

Tooth continues to demonstrate that they do not understand the meaning of evolution.

Target Food would say other wise. It's common sense that if the life on a planet dies out, the planet dies. Our planet is in its 6 largest mass extinction right now looking at a total loss of 98% of life. It's common sense that a planet would normally be structured to support life to grow, not die out. Evoluton claims that this is all part of the master plan of evolution. That not only can evolution create new species, but can also render early death. It appears to be more of an issue that somone noticed these events and simply claimed them to all be part of the normal process with no proof.

More nonsensical gibberish about TF.

Now here is proof about Target Food. Since it is hard to find on this planet and Abalone seems to be the best I have done so far, perhaps you might better understand this looking at it from a different angle. It makes the most sense that every species is suppose to have specific food to eat that renders the most nutrients for that species. Now you can assume that the way our planet is currently functioning is correct but anytime a species has to eat something that wasn't intended for it, there is a compramise in the health and the integrity of that species. Let me explain better. Lets say I like to eat pizza, and you like to eat a lot of different things. I decide to only eat pizza, I will surly live an unhealthy life and die sooner. You will live longer based on the fact that you eat more of a round diet. I know this to be fact, I have watched enough "Freaky Eaters" to know this is true, and in fact one was about a obligore pizza eater. /quote]
Continued gibberish about TF.

Now this may not seem like proof at first, but if not then you believe in chaos and no order to things. Lets set aside our differences for a moment about who is correct in evolution versus creation. Lets only go by what we know, since that is the fairest way. When we look at DNA do we see order and comformity or do we see chaos? We see order and comformity. So its stands to reason that our existence is suppose to also have order and comformity, but it doesn't. The reason is because someone placed all this life together on this planet that doesn't belong together, just like it says in the bible./quote]
And more gibberish.

The problem here is as I pointed out in my quoted text:
So far tooth has shown an inability to:
1. learn what science means by evolution
2. post any scientific evidence against evolution
3. learn that the bible is a good part fiction

reply to post by itsthetooth

I understand all of it, I'm just not a sucker for believing in it.

Without resorting to a quote from a source why not tell us the difference between proof and evidence in your own words. Any please supply examples if you can.

reply to post by stereologist

Tooth proves once again they have no idea what evolution means.

Thats exactly what evolution means. You think because this fantasy of speciation is real that I share a common ancestor with apes.

Pointless. Fictional books do not state they are fiction. The bible is demonstrably fiction.

Then how do you know they are fiction? Your assuming is how.

reply to post by stereologist

Without resorting to a quote from a source why not tell us the difference between proof and evidence in your own words. Any please supply examples if you can.

The difference between proof and evidence is simple.

I have proof that there is intelligence involved in programming species with knowing what they are suppose to eat, based on common patterns by any number of diets.

Evolution has evidence that suggests speciation might be real.

Your post wasn't ignored on purpose, Bob. I didn't see it for a while because I tend to stop following threads that tooth is involved it because they turn into rubbish fast and all intellectual integrity goes out the window. He's the guy who gets debunked over and over and over again but just pretends it doesn't happen.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
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.

The problem with taking the average is that in the grand scheme of things, not all that many genomes have been mapped and analyzed from generation to generation. To verify the idea that the deleterious mutation rate is too high for survival you'd need to map a large sample size of both humans and human ancestors. This is a very difficult task as we've only got humans, neanderthals and denisovans mapped, and only a few individuals of the latter 2. I believe you posted the source I was going for there. Since you agree about the various mutation rates, I won't post that one.

The other big issue is that nowhere in that study does it suggest that 4.2 or 3 is too high for evolution to be possible. That conclusion is drawn from creationists that mostly don't understand the data. It does raise some questions and obviously warrants further study, but it doesn't prove anything like that. The mutation rates may have changed over the years or they could be accelerated by pollution and other environment factors of today. There's way too many possibilities to suggest that, and the fact that there are mutations in the first place, proves evolution.

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.

Yes, but in order to suggest the deleterious rate is too high they'd have to map genomes of both the parents and offspring. It's not just about one genome, it's about the entire human race and it's been proven that the rate varies in different individuals and that every person's genome is a bit different.

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.

What you neglect to mention is that there are tons of mutations that are not deleterious and having a deleterious mutation isn't automatically a bad thing. Most of the times they go unnoticed and do not effect the child negatively at all. There is also the fact of interbreeding following convergent evolution in that greatly increases genetic diversity. It may be possible that this is true in most creatures; they decline until they are able to increase the gene pool again via interbreeding. With humans it's difficult because natural selection doesn't apply like it used to for most of us. That could also factor in along with dozens of other things. It definitely doesn't suggest evolution is impossible.

It's been a while since I looked those numbers up, so if I missed something please let me know.

reply to post by Barcs


Also it seems I have lost my ability to edit posts, so I just wanted to also mention that to map genomes from generation to generation would also have to include people from various cultures around the world, since every genome is slightly different some cultures could have different rates than others since the rates change over time as well in all likelyhood.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Thats exactly what evolution means. You think because this fantasy of speciation is real that I share a common ancestor with apes.

Once again tooth shows that meaning of evolution is lost to them.

Then how do you know they are fiction? Your assuming is how.

How do I know a book is fiction. In the case of the bible it is easy. It involves places and peoples that do not exist. The fossil record shows that despite two distinct creation myths in genesis both have the wrong order. Exodus has zero archaeological evidence for it. The evidence is clear that there was no exodus. Geology and physics show that there was never a global flood. These are some of the ways the bible can be shown to be a good part fiction. None of that is an assumption. It is clear evidence against.

And if you had not figured it out that is science testing the bible.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I have proof that there is intelligence involved in programming species with knowing what they are suppose to eat, based on common patterns by any number of diets.

That is a clear statement that you have no idea what proof means.

TF is a failed idea.

Evolution has evidence that suggests speciation might be real.

Evolution is a fact. The question for science is the way it happened. The theory is discussed in science, not the fact.

In the matter of the mutation rates I would like to point out that variability of primates is quite high.

Of the best examples I know of involves the human kidney. The kidney contains structures called nephrons. Studies of the number of nephrons in healthy humans shows a huge difference with some humans having 150,000 nephrons and others having 1.25 million. That is a 9X difference between healthy humans.

An interesting question would be: is the variability with primate species in any way associated with the mutation rate?

reply to post by Barcs


Actually I'm the guy thats waiting to be debunked, still waiting.

reply to post by stereologist

Once again tooth shows that meaning of evolution is lost to them.

I want to see the proof that speciation is actually species changing into another species. Perhaps your assumption this time has backed you in a corner. I can see with evolution logic that scientists would assume the species is changing into another species simply because it shows changes.

I guess thats open for argument. If humans started turning up with natural green hair, would we assume that its a new species? I think evolutionists would because they are to quick to buy and accept changes as speciation. The bottom line is that just because a human turns up with green hair, doesn't mean they are any less human then the rest of us.

Evolutionists have an itchy trigger finger when it comes to identifying new species, and its almost funny with how aggressive they are about it. Just because you want there to be a different species doesn't make it any more so. You also rely on relation isolation to tell you if something is a different species but I have allready proven that to be wrong with the plethora of examples of off species that can breed and some that aren't but can't, including my nexdoor neighbor.

How do I know a book is fiction. In the case of the bible it is easy. It involves places and peoples that do not exist. The fossil record shows that despite two distinct creation myths in genesis both have the wrong order. Exodus has zero archaeological evidence for it. The evidence is clear that there was no exodus. Geology and physics show that there was never a global flood. These are some of the ways the bible can be shown to be a good part fiction. None of that is an assumption. It is clear evidence against.

And if you had not figured it out that is science testing the bible.

Well here is where your problem is, first off you do know the bible was written a few years ago, and your looking for people to still be alive today that are in the bible, duh. Second I allready pointed out that large aquatic ducts like the grand canyon totaly support the idea of a global flood, and that I live just feet from one like the grand canyon only mine isn't a mile deep but it could be several miles wide. Third, your fossil record could be wrong. Fourth, the exodus era could have been wiped out by supernatural forces. I can see that you once again are relying on current scientific measures to identify things that happened in the bible. This tells me that you are still missing the definition of the term supernatural. You will not be able to identify many things in the bible until you identify that term.

Now I can see you totally just don't get it. Because you made the statement that science is testing the bible. Again I invite you to revisit the definition where you will specifically learn (I hope anyhow) that science CANT test the bible. This is because you have to first recreate the supernatural elements, and as far as I'm aware, we can't do that. So since you probably still don't get it, look at it this way, your trying to bring your FORD into a CHEVY dealer to have them test your car, its not going to happen.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I want to see the proof that speciation is actually species changing into another species.

You demonstrated with your answer below that you would not know what proof or evidence is. Quite pathetic actually.

Almost as pathetic as you continually repeating and demonstrating of the same ignorance you did the first time you made that statement and the thousands of times you have repeated it since.

The difference between proof and evidence is simple.

I have proof that there is intelligence involved in programming species with knowing what they are suppose to eat, based on common patterns by any number of diets.

Evolution has evidence that suggests speciation might be real.

Then as usual when you are shown to be completely wrong and undeniably ignorant on the subject you have an insane hatred of, you enter into another unsubstantiated rant to cover your embarrasment.

As for supernatural you ignored a post from me regarding your ignorance on a subject you claim expertise in but demonstrate total ignorance of even at the most basic level.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

I'm sorry but I find no evidence that magic has anything to do with the supernatural, and I have already provided links proving that to be the case.

That is yet another example of you refusing to see anything that goes against your homemade religion. Not only have you had all this explained many times over it also only takes a 2 second search to show yet again how wrong you are

Man Myth & Magic (encyclopaedia)

Man, Myth & Magic is an encyclopaedia of the supernatural, including magic, mythology and religion. .

Complied I believe by many that has spent more than 30 years studying the supernatural. So if they equate the supernatural with magic, mythology and religion explain why you don’t

BTW they are not evolutionists so you have no reason to doubt them

And here is a link that I got from the same 2 second search

Magic (paranormal)

Magic is the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation, ceremony, ritual, the casting of spells or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature

What I find so hard to believe is how you can be so dishonest, so ignorant, so self deluded and so wrong on every subject you comment on yet have convinced yourself you are correct.

The only answer I can give to explain your failings is that the evil aliens have transmuted ALL your surviving brain cells into anti brain cells (using recycled parts of course)

Dam them evil, dirty aliens, they blew your mind to hell

reply to post by itsthetooth

I want to see the proof that speciation is actually species changing into another species. Perhaps your assumption this time has backed you in a corner. I can see with evolution logic that scientists would assume the species is changing into another species simply because it shows changes.

Please take a basic biology course when you get to high school. Your post makes no sense.

I guess thats open for argument. If humans started turning up with natural green hair, would we assume that its a new species? I think evolutionists would because they are to quick to buy and accept changes as speciation. The bottom line is that just because a human turns up with green hair, doesn't mean they are any less human then the rest of us.

Another pointless comment that could be avoided by taking a biology course.

Evolutionists have an itchy trigger finger when it comes to identifying new species, and its almost funny with how aggressive they are about it. Just because you want there to be a different species doesn't make it any more so. You also rely on relation isolation to tell you if something is a different species but I have allready proven that to be wrong with the plethora of examples of off species that can breed and some that aren't but can't, including my nexdoor neighbor.

More gibberish.

You need to learn what evolution, and species mean in science. Your statements are nonsensical and often self contradictory due to your lack of understanding of these basic terms.

You've proved nothing. You have demonstrated that you donot know what the terms mean.

Well here is where your problem is, first off you do know the bible was written a few years ago, and your looking for people to still be alive today that are in the bible, duh.

False.

Second I allready pointed out that large aquatic ducts like the grand canyon totaly support the idea of a global flood, and that I live just feet from one like the grand canyon only mine isn't a mile deep but it could be several miles wide.

False.

Third, your fossil record could be wrong.

False.

Fourth, the exodus era could have been wiped out by supernatural forces.

I've heard the same sort of idiotic nonsense from lecturers that invoke magic to cover up for the biblical flood. When the creationist realizes that the bible is contradicted by the world they see, then it is time to invoke magic.

I can see that you once again are relying on current scientific measures to identify things that happened in the bible. This tells me that you are still missing the definition of the term supernatural. You will not be able to identify many things in the bible until you identify that term.

The bible is full of magic. Doing things by speaking incantations is magic. That is how the world is made. "let there be ..."

Now I can see you totally just don't get it. Because you made the statement that science is testing the bible. Again I invite you to revisit the definition where you will specifically learn (I hope anyhow) that science CANT test the bible.

Of course science can test the bible. Did the walls of Jericho tumble down? Science says no. Was there a global flood? Science says no? Did ancient Egypt have a large number of Hebrew slaves? Science says no.

This is because you have to first recreate the supernatural elements, and as far as I'm aware, we can't do that. So since you probably still don't get it, look at it this way, your trying to bring your FORD into a CHEVY dealer to have them test your car, its not going to happen.

A false notion that anything has to be recreated.

These sort of ridiculous claims come from people that already know the bible is a good part friction.

reply to post by colin42

You demonstrated with your answer below that you would not know what proof or evidence is. Quite pathetic actually.

Evolution has no proof, thats enough for me to know.

Then as usual when you are shown to be completely wrong and undeniably ignorant on the subject you have an insane hatred of, you enter into another unsubstantiated rant to cover your embarrasment.

First off, I have no embarrasment, but you should. Second no one has shown me to be completly wrong, or even partially wrong for that matter.

None of which is in the bible. People aren't doing witchcraft in the bible. Your book is just one authors opinion or example of someones opinion of the word supernatural. Of course you have to reach out and see if someone wrote a book that brings these subjects together because you sure in the heck aren't going to find them together in any standard dictionary. You must have spent a lot of time on this. Just goes to show how first of all you can find anything on the internet even if its wrong, and how people will go to absurd lenghts to prove their point.

What I find so hard to believe is how you can be so dishonest, so ignorant, so self deluded and so wrong on every subject you comment on yet have convinced yourself you are correct.

The only answer I can give to explain your failings is that the evil aliens have transmuted ALL your surviving brain cells into anti brain cells (using recycled parts of course)

Dam them evil, dirty aliens, they blew your mind to hell

Hey at least I'm not the one dismissing and ignorng terms because they don't fit your fantasy. Like the term in the wild that you swear up and down is a movie. And the term natural how every listing of it clearly shows that when man has altered or made something that its not considered to be natural.

You have to be the most dishonest person I have run into on ATS.

I'm reminded by these silly shenanigans by a creationist lecturer that claimed a canyon formed in a few weeks that was 1/10 the size of the Grand Canyon. I asked them how was that measurement taken. They did not know. They simply repeated 1/10 the size. I asked if it was 1/10 the depth. They repeated 1/10. Was it 1/10 the width? They repeated 1/10. I asked if it was 1/10 the length. They repeated 1/10. Was it 1/10 the volume? They repeated 1/10. I asked them if it was 1/10 the map area. They repeated 1/10. When I told the lecturer that it could not be true that all of these numbers were 1/10 they told me that I was wrong.

It took no time at all to find the canyon. It is not 1/10 of anything of the Grand Canyon. Seems that the lecturer was simply repeating something they were told to say. It was a lie, but not of the lecturer's doing. Although the lecturer had no idea what the number meant or how it was derived they latched onto it and wouldn't let go.

Creationists lie often and they do it to without shame.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Evolution has no proof, thats enough for me to know.

There is 150 years of data supporting evolution theory.

Evolution is a fact.

First off, I have no embarrasment, but you should. Second no one has shown me to be completly wrong, or even partially wrong for that matter.

You've been shown wrong on nearly every post you made.

People aren't doing witchcraft in the bible.

Turning rivers red and invoking plagues is witchcraft. You just prefer a gussied up name.

reply to post by stereologist

There is 150 years of data supporting evolution theory.

I would seriously question any theory thats 150 years in the making. Sounds more to me like moving goal posts around a few times.

Evolution is a fact.

Evolution is certainly no a fact, as mentioned in this evolution website...

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses

Evolution

Trust me, if you have been working on it for 150 years, and its still full of holes, which it is, big holes you can fall in, it's certainly not a fact. As the site claims it embraces a plurality of theories and hypothesis. What this means is that first of all its not a scientific fact, and as a whole has not been proven. In short, there are sections of evolution that have never been proven, therefore you cant claim it to be a fact.

If you want to say the theory exists, thats a fact, if you want to say the theory is a proven fact, thats a lie.

You've been shown wrong on nearly every post you made.

Telling me that I'm wrong is not showing me that I'm wrong, I look to something a little more tangible called evidence, and when it comes to evolution its pretty thin.

Turning rivers red and invoking plagues is witchcraft. You just prefer a gussied up name.

Sounds more like war to me. So because you cant wrap you head around the fact that your just not sure how they pulled this off, you have to run to he assumption bin and pull out a witchcraft card.

Which it could be, or it could be supernatural, or it could be magic, or it could be unknown science. You seem to forget, we don't know everything, but most evolutionists are content with believing we do.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Evolution has no proof, thats enough for me to know.

You already demonstrated you do not know what proof is. So that's a fail.

Then as usual when you are shown to be completely wrong and undeniably ignorant on the subject you have an insane hatred of, you enter into another unsubstantiated rant to cover your embarrasment.

Your reply is a .............................Rant ..........................

Here you go again

None of which is in the bible. People aren't doing witchcraft in the bible. Your book is just one authors opinion or example of someones opinion of the word supernatural.

And now you demonstrate again your inability to read. Man, Myth & Magic is a compilation from many authors as stated in the links info. Witch craft is based wait for it .......... on a religious belief.

So it is based on many peoples definition of supernatural. People that have spent over 30 years studying the supernatural

Of course you have to reach out and see if someone wrote a book that brings these subjects together because you sure in the heck aren't going to find them together in any standard dictionary.

Again you cant read and cannot be honest as in the very same post I gave you another defintion

Magic (supernatural)

Magic is the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation, ceremony, ritual, the casting of spells or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature

So again all you display is dishonesty and denial

You must have spent a lot of time on this.

As I told you one 2 sec search and both links were listed. Do you ever read what you dont want to see?

Just goes to show how first of all you can find anything on the internet even if its wrong

And yet you cannot find anything that backs up target food fantasy

and how people will go to absurd lenghts to prove their point.

Now that you have provided evidence for in spades for months.

Hey at least I'm not the one dismissing and ignorng terms because they don't fit your fantasy.

The hell you arnt.

Like the term in the wild that you swear up and down is a movie.

Nope. All I asked you to do is put your use of it into context. You dont understand context either.

And the term natural how every listing of it clearly shows that when man has altered or made something that its not considered to be natural.

That is another post of mine you ignored.

I have allready posted pages of different sources for the definition natural. Like I have told you before I'm not going to play the colin repeat game with you, you are welcome to review back and get them yourself

Then you have no objections to this one then

Natural

Strangely I don’t find anywhere anything where it says Natural = not to do with man

You didnt answer. Why is that?

reply to post by itsthetooth
Again you post info from a link claiming it supports you but all it really demonstrates is your abject ignorance.

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses

Overarching overall; all-encompassing ⇒ an overarching concept

Unifies To make into or become a unit; consolidate.

Plurality one of the "twelve pure concepts of the understanding" proposed by Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason

the most votes for any choice in an election, but not necessarily a majority

So your link is telling you that the theory of evolution unites all the biological sciences with one single concept that is overwhelmingly accepted as true

It is telling you that as far as science is concerned this is as close to a fact as you can get within science

So again you fail to prove anything other than your total and wilful ignorance on a subject you show no ability to understand.