Science against evolution

reply to post by Barcs


Modern synthesis is another example of how evolutionists moved the goal posts. Once science proves that wrong, they will retreat again by moving the goal posts again to allow this religion to live on.

While i am not 100% sure what to believe, i do have one question that has never been answered to my satisfaction. We all know animals have instincts that humans do not possess. Like if a Tsunami is coming animals will head to high ground. Humans will just stand there dumbfounded as to the cause until the wave is in sight. Animals sense earthquakes, etc, before they happen. Humans still have their base instincts but do not have,nor it appears never did have the instincts inherent in animals. If we evolved from animals, why do we not possess those same abilities? I am not talking about enhanced sense of smell. etc. Is this instinct that animals possess essentially the enlightenment man seeks? It is an extremely valuable instinct that animals possess. I can see no scenario that would cause man to lose such a valuable instinct, if man ever possessed it to start with. This is a sticking point in the theory of evolution in my mind.

Originally posted by itsthetooth

1Nor does evolutionists know what a scientific theory is. If they did, they would know it fails the litmus for being presented as such. Evolution fails the requirement of falsifiability. It's not a scientific theory.
But this is a good example for you to open your eyes and realize just how much evolutionists and its followers will bend and stretch the truth because they want so bad to have something to believe in.

You really don't know what you're talking about Tooth...

Consequently any of the following would destroy the theory:

If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.

If it could be shown that, although mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.

If it could be shown that, although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.

If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.

If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.

Or my favourite would be finding a T-Rex fossil with a rabbit in its jaws..... evolution is very falsifiable.

But what I find truly incredible, is how wrong someone can be, all the time, and still post with the confidence and assurability that you do Toothy.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

Modern synthesis is another example of how evolutionists moved the goal posts. Once science proves that wrong, they will retreat again by moving the goal posts again to allow this religion to live on.

Where is your science? Nothing has been proven wrong, except you. Religions are not based on scientific research papers. Nice try, though. You made a lot of statements that have not been backed up. Modern Synthesis = evolution. You should try to know maybe just a LITTLE BIT about what you're talking about before saying something. There's a reason why you have absolutely no credibility. How many times do you have to be proven wrong? Genetic tampering isn't proven!! How can you claim that without evidence?

Originally posted by jimmiec
While i am not 100% sure what to believe, i do have one question that has never been answered to my satisfaction. We all know animals have instincts that humans do not possess. Like if a Tsunami is coming animals will head to high ground. Humans will just stand there dumbfounded as to the cause until the wave is in sight. Animals sense earthquakes, etc, before they happen. Humans still have their base instincts but do not have,nor it appears never did have the instincts inherent in animals. If we evolved from animals, why do we not possess those same abilities? I am not talking about enhanced sense of smell. etc. Is this instinct that animals possess essentially the enlightenment man seeks? It is an extremely valuable instinct that animals possess. I can see no scenario that would cause man to lose such a valuable instinct, if man ever possessed it to start with. This is a sticking point in the theory of evolution in my mind.

First, not all animals have these traits, and second humans ARE animals. They are just more intelligent than the rest. Asking about why humans don't have the same disaster instincts as various animals is the same as asking why humans have hands while most animals have paws. Why don't we have fins and gills, since we originally came from the sea? Things change over time and humans prime survival traits are intelligence and the ability to manipulate things with our hands. We don't just sit there dumbfounded when a Tsunami is coming. We have technology that detects them ahead of time and the communication systems to warn the people that the Tsunami is coming. In the past before technology we had to be innovative and use problem solving skills to survive a disaster like that. We don't need those instincts to survive, so those traits were phased out over millions of years, just like excess body hair, sharp claws, sharp teeth, tails, tough skin, etc etc. We make tools, and technology to survive, we don't need all that other hoopla. It's also possible that we do still have those skills, but since we aren't really connected with nature anymore for survival, we don't realize it or it isn't as prevalent or strong anymore. It's really just a connection to the electromagnet field around the earth. I think there are plenty of humans out there that still have it. One good example is how the ionosphere can mess with human emotions and change people's moods.

reply to post by Barcs

Where is your science? Nothing has been proven wrong, except you. Religions are not based on scientific research papers. Nice try, though. You made a lot of statements that have not been backed up. Modern Synthesis = evolution. You should try to know maybe just a LITTLE BIT about what you're talking about before saying something. There's a reason why you have absolutely no credibility. How many times do you have to be proven wrong? Genetic tampering isn't proven!! How can you claim that without evidence?

My proof is based on your LACK of proof.

There is no evidence that evolution has the ability to change our DNA, yet here we are with obvious changes to our genome. Pye described it the best, have you seriously STILL not watched human genetics? The genome is public information so nothing is hidden here, and not a single person is contesting what hes presenting about our DNA.

reply to post by Barcs


Human genetics.

reply to post by Prezbo369


OH come on, Evolution is NOT predictable, how are you going to say that?

reply to post by Barcs

First, not all animals have these traits, and second humans ARE animals. They are just more intelligent than the rest. Asking about why humans don't have the same disaster instincts as various animals is the same as asking why humans have hands while most animals have paws. Why don't we have fins and gills, since we originally came from the sea? Things change over time and humans prime survival traits are intelligence and the ability to manipulate things with our hands. We don't just sit there dumbfounded when a Tsunami is coming. We have technology that detects them ahead of time and the communication systems to warn the people that the Tsunami is coming. In the past before technology we had to be innovative and use problem solving skills to survive a disaster like that. We don't need those instincts to survive, so those traits were phased out over millions of years, just like excess body hair, sharp claws, sharp teeth, tails, tough skin, etc etc. We make tools, and technology to survive, we don't need all that other hoopla. It's also possible that we do still have those skills, but since we aren't really connected with nature anymore for survival, we don't realize it or it isn't as prevalent or strong anymore. It's really just a connection to the electromagnet field around the earth. I think there are plenty of humans out there that still have it. One good example is how the ionosphere can mess with human emotions and change people's moods.

Except that your wrong again. Humans are NOT the same as animals, which is why we call animals animals and humans humans. Out of everything living here that has blood, humans even have a blood type that isn't found in any other living thing on this planet. Explain how that happened? Did our blood evolve too

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

There is no evidence that evolution has the ability to change our DNA, yet here we are with obvious changes to our genome.

As I understand it, "evolution" is not a thing that does stuff.
It's a model to describe a dynamic, continuous process. (sp?)

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

Except that your wrong again. Humans are NOT the same as animals, which is why we call animals animals and humans humans.

We call humans humans because we ARE humans.
One of many species of LIVING STUFF.
A part of ALL STUFF.
We ain't that special. Cool, sure, but not special.

Originally posted by Prezbo369
Consequently any of the following would destroy the theory:

If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.

Funny, how when someone asks to show how God does not exist, it's such a stupid request, but if the same is done for mutations, suddenly it's a viable way to disprove evolution.. Double standards ftw.

Originally posted by Prezbo369
If it could be shown that, although mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.

Same story as above. But this is obvious. If a mutation occurs anywhere that is not in the reproductive cells, it will not be passed down. Not to mention there is a repair mechanism in DNA...

Originally posted by Prezbo369
If it could be shown that, although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.

Again with the request of proving a negative. It's up to the supporters of evolution to show that this is the case. The double standard in these threads.. The shame...

Originally posted by Prezbo369
If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.

"Better adapted" is such an abstract term. There are so many variables in any environment that one can make up any BS at any moment as to how it's natural selection and evolution. If it's a moth, one can say it's camouflaged and the rest died out. If it's a peacock, one can say that its beauty is what attracted mates and thus that allowed for survival. If it's a frog, one can say that it needed food from both water and land and thus it's an amphibian. One can make up anything to make it sound as if a creature fits its environment better than any other. That's not scientific. How does one test for adaptation in the first place?

Originally posted by Prezbo369
If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.

The current theory of evolution requires more than just species. It requires a change in genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom and domain. The only one that's left out is 'life' because according to you people that's abiogenesis.

Originally posted by Prezbo369
Or my favourite would be finding a T-Rex fossil with a rabbit in its jaws..... evolution is very falsifiable.

Yeah, except the evidence will be dismissed because it doesn't fit the paradigm, just like Barcs simply dismissed the article I posted, and even got a star for it.

You people are more religious than creationists.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish

 

Your the one makeing claims without any evidence to back it up and useing lame tactics of ignoring, denying, or misrepresenting any evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
What rubs people the wrong way is when you say things they know are false, and you don't appear willing to learn where you are wrong.
Every scientific hypothesis must pass a trial by fire of observation, hypothesis forming, experimentation, conclusion and communication.This is very different from the environment that creationists are coming from where their ideas are not challenged as long as they ahdere to orthodoxy. In science, there are no sacred cows. Every idea is up for debate.
If you have any specific claims that are not being backed up then please do share.

No everything is backed up. Our DNA has proof of tampering, which proves that the punishments weren't BS in the bible. Target food backs up the proof of us not being from this planet, as do dozens of other things.

Argument from incredulity.
Again, you cannot provide any evidence you are simply invoking your belief even after things have been explained to you time and again "with evidence."
You are afflicted with a sad case of willful ignorance, and that's nothing to be proud of.

reply to post by itsthetooth

1Nor does evolutionists know what a scientific theory is. If they did, they would know it fails the litmus for being presented as such. Evolution fails the requirement of falsifiability. It's not a scientific theory.
But this is a good example for you to open your eyes and realize just how much evolutionists and its followers will bend and stretch the truth because they want so bad to have something to believe in.
2Neither does evolutionists. Your assuming diversity based on appearance and that is NOT proof. Relative appearance doesn't prove evolution anymore than it proves creation.
3Evolution is only established through acceptance. Just like a lot of people accept religion.
4Well one thing is for sure, assuming the things that you do in your new found religion is not going to help anyone else learn them when you fail at producing any tangible evidence.

Here we have verbal diarrhea in which someone makes nonsense claims. Typical creationist gibberish.

I've been to many creationist lectures to see just what they have to say.

A typical lie by creationists is that evolution is not falsifiable. Yes it is. Creationists often try to use the ploy of finding out of sequence fossils. It seems every lecture I attend involves a claim of a shoe print among dinosaur prints or a shoe print smashing a trilobite.

There are those that miss this. Not sure how this goes over someones head, but they claim that evolution is not falsifiable. I guess they have not been listening to the lies other creationists have been making.

Then there are the simply ludicrous claims about appearance. You have to shake your head in disbelief as someone makes it evident that they have no clue about biology. I remember one lecture where the knucklehead creationist tells the zoology professor that they needed to take an intro course in biology. Made the lecture hall laugh and the dolts in the crowd had no idea the sort of gaffe made by the creationist. The audience was too busy thumbing through their bronze age fairy tale.

Then there is the silly idea that evolution is just accepted like religion. Such claims are made by the illiterate that have never been to a scientific meeting and do not understand the process in which ideas are tested. There is a name to make for yourself in science if you can overturn an accepted idea. If you can show that others did not scrutinize the data as well as you did then others will take notice. Test and retest is the way science works.

Then again there are the wingnuts that no matter how often you show that jokes such as "target foods" is a failure simply can't handle it. These folks making these absurd claims are really there to make the idiocy of creationism look relatively reasonable.

After a century and a half of vociferous discussion the ideas of Darwin have changed because better ideas were discovered. There is no end to the testing of the theory of evolution. There never will be. Science is never going to give a free pass to any theory. That is why science will always triumph over fairy tales from the bronze age.

reply to post by itsthetooth

No everything is backed up. Our DNA has proof of tampering, which proves that the punishments weren't BS in the bible. Target food backs up the proof of us not being from this planet, as do dozens of other things.

When I first heard of the idiocy of target foods I laughed because it was trivial to show failure after failure after failure for this childish claim.

reply to post by jimmiec

While i am not 100% sure what to believe, i do have one question that has never been answered to my satisfaction. We all know animals have instincts that humans do not possess. Like if a Tsunami is coming animals will head to high ground. Humans will just stand there dumbfounded as to the cause until the wave is in sight. Animals sense earthquakes, etc, before they happen. Humans still have their base instincts but do not have,nor it appears never did have the instincts inherent in animals. If we evolved from animals, why do we not possess those same abilities? I am not talking about enhanced sense of smell. etc. Is this instinct that animals possess essentially the enlightenment man seeks? It is an extremely valuable instinct that animals possess. I can see no scenario that would cause man to lose such a valuable instinct, if man ever possessed it to start with. This is a sticking point in the theory of evolution in my mind.

I'd be interested in knowing about any animal that can detect a tsunami.

Frankly, there is zero evidence that animals can detect quakes or tsunamis or volcanic eruption before they happen.

What I read from your post is that you think it is important for species to have all sorts of capabilities including ones that would not benefit the general population.

Should giraffes be able to detect incoming asteroids before they hit? Should salmon be able to predict that the weather above will result in a devastating forest fire that will lead to an influx of debris clogging their gills?

Evolution does not work that way. You are thinking Lamarckian, which was quickly discovered not to be the way evolution works.

reply to post by itsthetooth

My proof is based on your LACK of proof.

There is no evidence that evolution has the ability to change our DNA, yet here we are with obvious changes to our genome. Pye described it the best, have you seriously STILL not watched human genetics? The genome is public information so nothing is hidden here, and not a single person is contesting what hes presenting about our DNA.

First off you are mistaking proof with evidence. Second, it seems that you are stating that you are clueless. That is what you appear to be posting. Not going to argue with that. I believe that is true. Not sure why you posted that although I agree wholeheartedly.

You also have the cart before the horse. DNA changes are evolution.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Except that your wrong again. Humans are NOT the same as animals, which is why we call animals animals and humans humans. Out of everything living here that has blood, humans even have a blood type that isn't found in any other living thing on this planet. Explain how that happened? Did our blood evolve too

Humans are animals. Pretty obvious actually. Too bad the obvious is not obvious to creationists.

I get such a kick out of creationist lecturers. These clowns can't wait to lie. I see them up on stage just salivating. They can't wait to tell the audience of bible page flipping eager beavers lies such as Aldous Huxley being Darwin's "bulldog". Not true. They can't wait to lie that a slab of rock shows stitching of a sandal in a deposit famous for its detailed trilobites. They can't wait to lie about the definition of uniformitarianism.

Fact is I have never seen one of these clowns bring up the lie of target foods.

reply to post by itsthetooth

There is no evidence that evolution has the ability to change our DNA,

This sentence sums up all of your scientific ignorance into one nicely wrapped package. If, after all of your years of scholarly studies and all of your years investigating biology and all of your years searching for evidence of interventionism, you still think that "evolution changes our DNA" then there is absolutely no point in trying to have any kind of factual, evidence driven conversation with you about evolution.

Originally posted by vasaga
Funny, how when someone asks to show how God does not exist, it's such a stupid request, but if the same is done for mutations, suddenly it's a viable way to disprove evolution.. Double standards ftw.

Difference is mutations exist and can be observed.....are you comparing your god to a mutation?

Same story as above. But this is obvious. If a mutation occurs anywhere that is not in the reproductive cells, it will not be passed down. Not to mention there is a repair mechanism in DNA...

Yes but mutations have been shown to pass on through the generations haven't they, reproductive cells are still cells....obviously

Again with the request of proving a negative. It's up to the supporters of evolution to show that this is the case. The double standard in these threads.. The shame...

www.int-res.com... changes have been observed and shown to drive natural selection though...

"Better adapted" is such an abstract term. There are so many variables in any environment that one can make up any BS at any moment as to how it's natural selection and evolution. If it's a moth, one can say it's camouflaged and the rest died out. If it's a peacock, one can say that its beauty is what attracted mates and thus that allowed for survival. If it's a frog, one can say that it needed food from both water and land and thus it's an amphibian. One can make up anything to make it sound as if a creature fits its environment better than any other. That's not scientific. How does one test for adaptation in the first place?

Adaptation can be and has been observed in action, no 'BS' required. How well an organism has adapted is linked directly to how well it has propagated. (FYI Frogs aren't Amphibians because they eat food found in water or on land...)

The current theory of evolution requires more than just species. It requires a change in genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom and domain. The only one that's left out is 'life' because according to you people that's abiogenesis.

The process of evolution is merely change over time, eventually that change has indeed led to a change in genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, kind, domain and species.

Yeah, except the evidence will be dismissed because it doesn't fit the paradigm, just like Barcs simply dismissed the article I posted, and even got a star for it.

You quoted a Chemist giving his opinion of how evolution may or may not be a catalyst for experimental biology, and was dismissed as such. That's nothing like your claim that scientists would cover up discoveries that would make them overnight rockstars in the scientific world because........it doesn't fit the paradigm??

You people are more religious than creationists.

I love how religion or religious is now a dirty/bad word, even for theists...