Science against evolution

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by peter vlar

 

interesting that instead of quoting any evidence I showed to support evolution, you instead use my quote from a physicist about the general lack of scientific understanding by most people and that somehow proves evolution incorrect. Just for the record, its Anthropologist, not evolutionist. aside from that I'm going to quit while I'm ahead and stop swimming in the kiddie pool before everyone starts to giggle about sitting in their own pee.

Any anthropologist would be smart enough to know that no one has ever witnessed apes evolving into humans, and in fact have never witnessed anything evolving into anything else.

So maybe I should quit while I'm way ahead an avoid participation in the assumption pool.

No you're quite correct no scientist has ever seen an ape evolve into a human. Mostly because humans ARE apes. I think you're confusing apes with gorillas which are so a member of the ape family. Ill exai. It like it did to my 5 yr old, apes are primates with no tails. This includes humans, gorillas, chimps, bonobos and orangutan. No as for any scientist ever seeing evolution actually take place I encourage you to google Lenski. Where do I make assumptions? I've made none that I can find. Everything I state is backed up by copious evidence.

reply to post by peter vlar

No you're quite correct no scientist has ever seen an ape evolve into a human. Mostly because humans ARE apes. I think you're confusing apes with gorillas which are so a member of the ape family. Ill exai. It like it did to my 5 yr old, apes are primates with no tails. This includes humans, gorillas, chimps, bonobos and orangutan. No as for any scientist ever seeing evolution actually take place I encourage you to google Lenski. Where do I make assumptions? I've made none that I can find. Everything I state is backed up by copious evidence.

Where is this copious evidence? If no scientist has ever witnessed a transgression into another species, there is no evidence, there is speculation.

Now there is mountains of speculation.
There is speculation that these said changes are all part of a process, without any proof.
There is speculation that all of these changes are working together in this process, again without any proof.
There is speculation that these changes can add up to the eventual workings of a species changing into another species, again with no proof.
There is speculation that these changes are part of the organized process known as evolution that is responsible for creating over a billion species, but its also speculated that this by no means has the title of anything near what would be called a creator.
Anything that creates over a billion species by accident or intentionally, is a creator period. According to the definition, a creator doesn't have to be in the form of a god as we know and understand.
The argument is based on number of a billion. Do you honestly think that something that is responsible for creating over a billion species did it all by happenstance, or do you agree there must be intent? Look at it this way, lets say your sister slapped you hard in the face, and you backed up then she explained that it was just an accident. Moments later she slapped you several more times, are you going to continue to believe it was all an accident?

There is no proof of evolution, there is only mountains of speculation, you can't will something into existence. Evolution has never been witnessed, however there have been changes that have been witnessed, but those changes have never been uniquely identified to belong to the process of evolution. Again I stand on my claim about ADHD, which is said to have been found with people having altered genes. Now they aren't making any claims that ADHD actually changes the genes, they are just saying that they go hand in hand almost all of the time. The culprit is said to be Lead. When we are exposed to lead, its causing these changes. Someone can get Lead from smoking FYI.

Anyhow, you don't have people making claims that smokers are altering evolution, that would be idiotic. But at the same time this is a new find which means that prior to this finding, those changes would have been viewed as though they were from evolution, see, Assumptions. The fact is that each and every genetic change can be accuratly accounted for, its just a matter of time before our scientists are able to do this. It requires an intense understanding of both the genome, and the alocated genes, along with the understanding of the changes, and reason for them. They have their work cut our for them for sure.

reply to post by peter vlar


Peter, I just wanted to add some facts to the existence of evolution for you, so you see it from a clearer understanding.
First of all if we were all honeslty living in a world that only existed from evolution, or at least its diversity, things would not look as they do today.

We would see a hell of a lot of species that are very simillar in genes, but instead what we find is major differences with some simularitys.

There should be thousands if not hundreds of thousands of variations of humans that would show genetic links between humans and apes. Instead we have zilch, we have no confimed links that connect us to them. We also share nothing with them. Anything they brought to the table, no matter how simple it was, was never carried over to humans. We don't even speak one simple shared word with them. We have no communication ties with them at all. Yet they are supposedly the closest thing we have on this planet. We share no living arrangments, no habits, nothing. They do have the ability to learn, but so do most of the species here.

If this were actually a planet of evolution, we would see more instances of species that have way more in common than they do now. Instead there is vast differences with some things that are familliar.

There is also the issue of species that defy evolution. There are to many things that are simply no possible through evolution, but would be through a creator. My favorite is flagellum. Please explain to me how gears and sprockets evolved.

reply to post by itsthetooth




It's ok to just say that you don't understand science or that it doesn't make any sense to you. The difference it would seem between you and I is that I don't exclude the possibility of a "god". I've simply seen no been w to support such a hypothesis as yet. If that evidence is ever presented I will entertain the notion. That's hat science is about. Using all the tools we have available to test different possibilities and if new evidence passes peer review it is accepted by most of the community. You on the other hand seem unwilling to accept any other possibility. As such is the case we no longer have a dialogue. We now have an impasse. There is nowhere else to go when you refuse to look at any evidence comtadictory to your own worldview. Lets agree to disagree and move on. I have no stake in attacking you or your views.

reply to post by peter vlar


Well its not that I don't have an interest in other views, I wouldn't be on ATS if that were the case, its all about other views.

Anyhow, what its about, is I have studdied them, and found them to all out admitt to being not proven. Evolution isn't even a scientific theory, it fails the litmus for that test. IMO it appears to be more of an attempt at circumventing religon, not that religon is the greatest.

Every link I have ever been sent to, to enlighten me about evolution is always filled with guessing and speculation when it comes to the important facts.

The facts are, no one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species, yet is supposedly is going on right under our noses. I guess what it comes down to is that we are just to stupid of a species to locate that all needed proof.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
The facts are, no one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species....

HERE is a whole page of examples of observed speciation.

Edit - the usual creationist respose at this point is to move the goalposts.

For evolution to be possible there needs to be mechanisms for increasing the overall quantity of information in an organism, and there clearly isn't.

To my fellow creationists; visit this forum www.facebook.com... and help debate the evidence against the myth of macro evolution and how Noah's flood really happened

reply to post by alfa1

HERE is a whole page of examples of observed speciation.

Edit - the usual creationist respose at this point is to move the goalposts.

Speciation IS an observed event, no doubt, but what are they really observing.

Well assumptions have been made that these changes are all part of this process known as evolution.
There is no scientific post at this point, just assumptions.
Species stop mating with one another and another assumption is made as well, that they have changed species.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that when a species changed species, it meant that it changed species, not stopping mating with one another.
The assumption that the species has changed based on the fact that it stopped reproducing is false, and there is no proof to substantiate the claim. When a species stops mating with its original group, for what ever reason, the only thing you have proven at that point is that it stops mating.

I can see through all of this that the inventors of this theory were just a tad to eager to come up with something. They are connecting dots where there aren't even any dots. And the scary part is how so many people buy into it.

None of which, would any of this prove that I share a common ancestor with apes, even if they were correct, while there is not proof they are. No one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species, and thats a fact.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Speciation IS an observed event, no doubt,

No one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species, and thats a fact.

Tell me he didn't just say that?

reply to post by Barcs

Tell me he didn't just say that?

Thats because specieation is NOT proof of a species changing into another species, or let me correct myself, its not proof of a species evolving.

It is however an assumption made that a species is changing into another species.

However if you check your records you will find that each and every test that has ever been done with this, always starts with a species, and ends up with the same species.

There is speculation however that the species has changed because of trivial reasons, like it no longer wants to mate with the original group, however all this has proven is that it no longer wants to mate with the original group, its not proof that the species is turning into another species, but its assumed so.

So again, like I keep telling you, evolution is nothing but a bunch of assumptions, based on assumptions.
The snake oil has dried up

reply to post by itsthetooth


Keep dreaming. You can't criticize an established scientific theory without providing science or evidence. You are providing conjecture and nothing more. Evolution is proven, end of story. It's amazing that people like you still doubt it after all the genetic evidence and fossil evidence that has been discovered in the last 20 years. AA theory might be partially true, but evolution is definitely true so AA goes hand in hand with it if anything. Evolution is compatible so I don't understand the blind hatred for it. Talk to a college professor of biology or an actual scientist if you want the details. I doubt you'll even understand it, so you'll probably instantly dismiss it like you do with every piece of proof for modern synthesis.

reply to post by Barcs

Keep dreaming. You can't criticize an established scientific theory without providing science or evidence. You are providing conjecture and nothing more. Evolution is proven, end of story.

What are you smoking, Evolution is not a PROVEN theory. If it were, they would know the mechanism for the changes, and they don't. Every link I have ever been sent to by your fellow evolutionists, have all owned up to the fact that its NOT a witnessed theory.

No one has EVER witnessed a species changing into another species, so it can't be possibly proven. But there lies a problem in with your mind. You can see how you have convinced yourself, in your own mind that its a proven theory. Last I checked its not even a theory. You cant structure a scientific theory purly on assumptions, like you have.

I want to see your proof of something changing into another species.

It's amazing that people like you still doubt it after all the genetic evidence and fossil evidence that has been discovered in the last 20 years. AA theory might be partially true, but evolution is definitely true so AA goes hand in hand with it if anything. Evolution is compatible so I don't understand the blind hatred for it. Talk to a college professor of biology or an actual scientist if you want the details. I doubt you'll even understand it, so you'll probably instantly dismiss it like you do with every piece of proof for modern synthesis.

Well there is where your problem is, genetics can't prove relation, its like saying your guilty by association.

I had an example about this weeks ago, about an evolutionist calling an airplane a car. Just because they both have simular tires. There isn't any amount of guesswork you can throw into the pile, using genetics that can prove relation.

Your just grasping at straws, you see DNA thats very simular, and see a species that has some small simularitys with us, and throwing up your hands and convincing yourself we must be related. Only problem is there is no proof, its all based on speculation, something frequently used in evolution.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
What are you smoking, Evolution is not a PROVEN theory. If it were, they would know the mechanism for the changes, and they don't.

The mechanisms are genetic mutations and natural selection. Both 100% proven and verifiable.

I want to see your proof of something changing into another species.

I've posted the link dozens upon dozens of times, half the times were probably for you. Speciation is proven and has been witnessed. How can you deny that after one species of fly turned into another species of fly in a lab right in front of witnesses? A fly doesn't have to turn into a cat to be another species. When a species changes, it will always be very similar to the original. "Macro" evolutionary changes take not just one transformation, but thousands to millions before something like a fish could change to an amphibian. It sounds like that's the only type of change that you'll accept as evolution, but that's a farce, because it's based on genetic mutations and natural selection. The other factor is time. You just refuse to accept the fact that small changes add up over time.

Well there is where your problem is, genetics can't prove relation, its like saying your guilty by association.

Actually you are wrong. Why do you think that we have paternity tests? We can absolutely prove relation through genetics. Otherwise it wouldn't hold up in court. Have you studied genetics, yourself?

reply to post by Barcs

The mechanisms are genetic mutations and natural selection. Both 100% proven and verifiable.

I understand that, but what I'm saying is that they are not able to look at it after the fact and determine exactly what caused the changes. It's all speculation.

I've posted the link dozens upon dozens of times, half the times were probably for you. Speciation is proven and has been witnessed.

I think here is where the problem is. Speciation maybe observed as changes taking place, and it maybe assumed that those changes are the species changing into another species, but there really is no hard evidence. No one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species. The theory is a guess, an assumption, there is no proof that a species can even change species if it wanted to.

How can you deny that after one species of fly turned into another species of fly in a lab right in front of witnesses?

What you mean to say is SUB SPECIES. Here is where your failing to see the facts. You started with a fly, and you ended up with a fly. This is exactly what I'm talking about, you make assumptions that first of all that the fly changed sub species but the only fact of that is based on how it no longer wants to mate with the original pact. The fact that it no longer wants to mate with the original group, that doesn't prove it's changed species.

When you start with a fly and end up with a mosquito, then you have a species that has changed. The problem here is that your making the first assumption that just because species are no longer to mate, that its a clue they have changed species, and your wrong. It's an assumption that only proves your willing to assume. But you also made another vital assumption, that the fly could change into something else over time. What your basically admitting at this point is that our current scientists today are just to stupid to prove it. There is no proof that a species can change into another species and no one has ever witnessed it either. So when are you going to put down the bible of assumption and start picking up some facts. I would like to see some facts about evolution that proves the things people here on ATS are assuming, because I have never read anything that fits the bill and I have looked at a lot of links your fellow illusionists have sent me to.

A fly doesn't have to turn into a cat to be another species. When a species changes, it will always be very similar to the original. "Macro" evolutionary changes take not just one transformation, but thousands to millions before something like a fish could change to an amphibian. It sounds like that's the only type of change that you'll accept as evolution, but that's a farce, because it's based on genetic mutations and natural selection. The other factor is time. You just refuse to accept the fact that small changes add up over time.

That was the other part of the picture that was missing, Your also making an assumption that changes can add up over time, however there is no proven test (please show if you have one) that claims that the changes start to differ after time, for all we know they are the same changes all over again, which could be enviroment altered as well. But here you go again making assumptions that the changes will differ, with nothing to base it on.

If any number of your assumptions are wrong, the whole theory is out the window, and there is no proof to back up you claims, so there is no way that Evolution can be proven. There is no proof that a species will change into another species over time.

Actually you are wrong. Why do you think that we have paternity tests? We can absolutely prove relation through genetics. Otherwise it wouldn't hold up in court. Have you studied genetics, yourself?

Thats a horrible excuse, there is a big difference between proving someone is a relative within the same species, and proving something is a complete different species. Just goes to show you how you don't know the first thing about genetics.

reply to post by theophilus40


So you look to find a site that is obviously one that seeks to discredit what cannot be discredited.

Evolution is a PROVEN FACT. It has not been a theory for some time.

Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity


I have never looked for nor found sites to discredit evolution, I have only looked at sites I was sent to by other people here on ATS that believe in Evolution.

They were obviously always filled with If's, and possibilities and few facts.

I know specieation is the witnessing of changes, I just never read anything that confirmed that those changes were actually species changing into another species.

I also never was able to find anything that conclusivly proved that all changes that were ever found were proven to all be part of the large process known as evolution, its just assumed they are, and proven wrong as in my example of ADHD genetics.

I also never found any conclusive proof that when a species stops mating with the original pact that it's changing species, only that it was assumed to.

I also never found any conclusive proof about whats known to be causing the changes, just that there is guesses, in other words, they have never been able to look at the changes after the fact and dismantle where and how the changes came to be.

So way to much guess work, this is why its not even a theory. Scietific theorys are not based on conjecture, granted not everything can always be proven, but the parts left out to structure the element of evolution are the criticle parts that identify exactly whats going on.

So the next time you want to jump up and say, oh ya, changes happened, so it must be evolution, you need to ask yourself if you have first ruled out all other possibilities like ADHD. Because untill recently, those genetic changes were not identified which means that prior to them doing identifying those changes, people would have assumed they were all a part of evolution, and they werent.

OOPS busted!

reply to post by itsthetooth

There is no proof that a species can change into another species and no one has ever witnessed it either.

Of course no one has - this is hardly a surprise to people who know something about biology. You see, what they understand (and you obviously don't) is that a species evolving into another species in front of our eyes would not just disprove the theory of evolution but also pretty much destroy the entire science of genetics. It would be a miracle that would make water turning into wine look like a cheap parlour trick.

Clearly, this is not how speciation happens. It's a population event, not something that happens to an individual and it takes many thousands of generations. This doesn't mean we can't study the process - we can, through the phenomenon of ring species.

I also never was able to find anything that conclusivly proved that all changes that were ever found were proven to all be part of the large process known as evolution, its just assumed they are, and proven wrong as in my example of ADHD genetics.

A completely nonsensical statement. Genetic changes in a population over time is the DEFINITION of evolution.

I also never found any conclusive proof that when a species stops mating with the original pact that it's changing species, only that it was assumed to.

More nonsense. Two populations not being able to interbreed is the DEFINITION that they're different species. It's going to be very difficult to discuss concepts like evolution and species with you if you don't even understand what they are.

So way to much guess work, this is why its not even a theory. Scietific theorys are not based on conjecture, granted not everything can always be proven, but the parts left out to structure the element of evolution are the criticle parts that identify exactly whats going on.

Your bizarre straw man version of evolution (where species mysteriously morph into other species in front of shocked witnesses) may be based on conjecture but the real theory of evolution (you know, the one that's been around for over 150 years) certainly isn't. It's based on an ever-growing compilation of evidence from such diverse fields of study as paleontology, biogeography, developmental biology, morphology, biochemistry and genetics. I challenge you to find any scientific theory that has a more solid, multi-disciplinary evidence base than the ToE.

OOPS busted!

Indeed.

For clarity, the definition of species should include that only individuals of the same species can have fertile offspring. Horses and donkeys can breed but their offspring is sterile so they're by this definition not of the same species.

This definition obviously only works for organisms that reproduce sexually, for other organisms the species definition gets more intricate. Usually, it's based on DNA similarity, morphology and metabolism.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by peter vlar

 

interesting that instead of quoting any evidence I showed to support evolution, you instead use my quote from a physicist about the general lack of scientific understanding by most people and that somehow proves evolution incorrect. Just for the record, its Anthropologist, not evolutionist. aside from that I'm going to quit while I'm ahead and stop swimming in the kiddie pool before everyone starts to giggle about sitting in their own pee.

Any anthropologist would be smart enough to know that no one has ever witnessed apes evolving into humans, and in fact have never witnessed anything evolving into anything else.

So maybe I should quit while I'm way ahead an avoid participation in the assumption pool.

Yes you should go somewhere else and explain how your whole "target food" hypothesis is scientifically sound in every thread that has to do with evolution... The fact that you've been debunked left and right in every other thread thus far, shows that you are way behind and in fact the turd that is swimming around in the assumption pool!

reply to post by radix

Of course no one has - this is hardly a surprise to people who know something about biology. You see, what they understand (and you obviously don't) is that a species evolving into another species in front of our eyes would not just disprove the theory of evolution but also pretty much destroy the entire science of genetics. It would be a miracle that would make water turning into wine look like a cheap parlour trick.

So in other words we are just to stupid to track it, and we are just to stupid to be able to identify it around us. No one has ever proven that changes found are those of a much larger picture to evolution, there is only speculation.

Clearly, this is not how speciation happens. It's a population event, not something that happens to an individual and it takes many thousands of generations. This doesn't mean we can't study the process - we can, through the phenomenon of ring species.

If this were true, it would mean that there should be hundreds upon thousands of species inbetween apes and humans. It's to my understanding we haven't found a one. Now we have found many variations of our species but none that conclusivly connect us to apes. It's got to be the biggest crock I have ever heard of. The snake oil is drying up.

A completely nonsensical statement. Genetic changes in a population over time is the DEFINITION of evolution.

Sure, but some of those changes were found out to be because of ADHD.

ADHD linked to missing genes
New ADHD Gene Study Points to Defects in Brain Signaling Pathways
Is ADHD really a Genetic Disorder?

These changes to the genes were only RECENTLY recognized as being part of ADHD which means that prior to them finding this out, those changes would have been looked at as Evolution. But you can now realize that would be an incorrct assesment. All changes over time should be Evolution, but we now know that all changes that occur over time aren't necessarly from evolution. This animal of evolution must have a bio clock so that it knows when time has passed.

More nonsense. Two populations not being able to interbreed is the DEFINITION that they're different species. It's going to be very difficult to discuss concepts like evolution and species with you if you don't even understand what they are.

My neighbor stopped mating with her husband. Is it becuase she is no longer in love with him, or perhaps because she changed species?

Your bizarre straw man version of evolution (where species mysteriously morph into other species in front of shocked witnesses) may be based on conjecture but the real theory of evolution (you know, the one that's been around for over 150 years) certainly isn't. It's based on an ever-growing compilation of evidence from such diverse fields of study as paleontology, biogeography, developmental biology, morphology, biochemistry and genetics. I challenge you to find any scientific theory that has a more solid, multi-disciplinary evidence base than the ToE.

I never said science was perfect. Just because something is mostly accepted, does not mean its a proven theory. No one has ever witnessed evolution, but we have witnessed changes. It's assumed through the mistake of science that those changes are in fact evolution.

This is what it comes down to, no one has taken the time to identify the individual changes to alocate them to the cause. Scientsts were merley seeing changes and claiming that they must be from evolution. It's perhaps the shottiest scientific work in the histoy of science, which is why I keep saying, your not going to be able to claim evolution until you first prove whats causing the changes. And I don't mean speculation again, I mean really proving. Like how it was done with ADHD. Someone really looked at it and discovered these changes to our genese and exactly what was causing them. You will eventuallly find that all changes can be accounted for, like that of ADHD, and that actually none are from this ghost called Evolution.

Everything happens for a reason.

Busted again.