Welcome, Guest. Please Login
YaBB - Yet another Bulletin Board
  We've upgraded to YaBB 2!
  HomeHelpSearchLogin  
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
There is no evidence for evolution? (Read 10123 times)
Oicurmtoyoy
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Seek Truth!

Posts: 20
There is no evidence for evolution?
Nov 14th, 2010 at 7:40am
 
Since GoodScienceForYou insists that there is no evidence, while refusing to refute that which is abundant, I've decided to bring it to him. These are the major categories:



1. Genetic evidence:
There is a large degree of similarities between some species, but less between others. It changes from generation to generation, leaving related organisms with similar DNA. I other words, organisms of common decent have a common ancestor. This should be no different for animals of different species.

While this is not absolute evidence, it is positive evidence. It's not based on opinion either, it's based on reasoning. It's much more logical to claim a relation between species, than to say it's coincidence.

2. The Fossil record:
This shows many creatures emerging from similar creatures immediately after. While it is not a video, it does give dates, based on several reliable dating methods, showing what appears to be an evolutionary time line. Again, this isn't based on opinion, it's based on reasoning.

I don't want anyone to say "there are no transitional fossils." That isn't even good enough to be a fallacy, it's an outright lie. Every other fossil is a transitional fossil. Just because it has it's own name, dosen't mean you can say it's a species in it's self.

3. Selective breeding:
This applies to cats, horses, and most famously dogs. By replacing the natural selection part of evolution with human selection, we have created a large variety of different animals. The replacement of natural selection, however, isn't the cause of this variety, it was merely a catalyst.

They can still reproduce between each other, but it's still evident from this that animals can significantly change over time. Because of this, you must concede that evolution happens to a degree.

4. Observed instances of evolution:
This is the good bit.

The well know, Nylon eating Bacteria are a good example. As I recall, GoodSceinceForYou tried to refute this, but when I responded he ignored my refutation of his refutation.

That would be the only one I know off the top of my head. I'm not going to list them all, but there are plenty more at talkorigins.org. If you're having trouble finding them, then you should go to the faq and ctrl f "speciation".



Those are the basic kinds of evidence that I know of, but I could have written MUCH more. Even if you don't conciser this absolute proof, it's positive proof.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: There is no evidence for evolution?
Reply #1 - Nov 14th, 2010 at 9:14am
 
Oicurmtoyoy wrote on Nov 14th, 2010 at 7:40am:
Since GoodScienceForYou insists that there is no evidence, while refusing to refute that which is abundant, I've decided to bring it to him. These are the major categories:



1. Genetic evidence:
There is a large degree of similarities between some species, but less between others. It changes from generation to generation, leaving related organisms with similar DNA. I other words, organisms of common decent have a common ancestor. This should be no different for animals of different species.

While this is not absolute evidence, it is positive evidence. It's not based on opinion either, it's based on reasoning. It's much more logical to claim a relation between species, than to say it's coincidence.

2. The Fossil record:
This shows many creatures emerging from similar creatures immediately after. While it is not a video, it does give dates, based on several reliable dating methods, showing what appears to be an evolutionary time line. Again, this isn't based on opinion, it's based on reasoning.

I don't want anyone to say "there are no transitional fossils." That isn't even good enough to be a fallacy, it's an outright lie. Every other fossil is a transitional fossil. Just because it has it's own name, dosen't mean you can say it's a species in it's self.

3. Selective breeding:
This applies to cats, horses, and most famously dogs. By replacing the natural selection part of evolution with human selection, we have created a large variety of different animals. The replacement of natural selection, however, isn't the cause of this variety, it was merely a catalyst.

They can still reproduce between each other, but it's still evident from this that animals can significantly change over time. Because of this, you must concede that evolution happens to a degree.

4. Observed instances of evolution:
This is the good bit.

The well know, Nylon eating Bacteria are a good example. As I recall, GoodSceinceForYou tried to refute this, but when I responded he ignored my refutation of his refutation.

That would be the only one I know off the top of my head. I'm not going to list them all, but there are plenty more at talkorigins.org. If you're having trouble finding them, then you should go to the faq and ctrl f "speciation".



Those are the basic kinds of evidence that I know of, but I could have written MUCH more. Even if you don't conciser this absolute proof, it's positive proof.



In genetics there is no evidence for evolution, only traits passed down the line. There is no genetic evidence to back up this idea that fish have evolved into humans.  There is no evidence that anything can evolve by any magical process at all.  Creatures adapt and when the limits of adaptation of the foundational genetic structures are met, they go extinct.
There has never been any fossil evidence, genetic evidence to show this as possible.

For instance we have 88% of the now or recently living, non bird vertebrates as fossils.  These are referred to as the living fossils.  They have not ever shown any signs of changing or morphing into a completely new species that is different than the parent group, or original fossils. Some of these are over 125,000,000 years old and look the same.  If evolution worked, (which it doesn't) then you would have plenty of transitional fossils all over the place.

And I never let anyone determine my definition of what evidence is.  Some fossil with not DNA being beleived to be the same genetic lineage is not evidence of transition.  It is evidence of belief.

There would be a long trail of transitional features that take the creature from one foundational genetic creature and morph it into a new genus.  Fossilization is far more prevalent than you are misled to believe.  That is why we have all these fossils of the now living creatures.

With selective breeding IT IS STILL A DOG and it can breed with other dogs as long as it can reach the bitch.

To show evolution you must produce a new genus that has not much in common with the original, like a fish that evolved into humans.

DNA evidence shows no evolution either.  This idea that creatures have similar DNA construction means they are related is nonsense.  There are only so many, and a very finite and small number of amino acids that can be used to make tissue in creatures, so OF COURSE it is going to be duplicated.  You  would expect it to be duplicated and that this has nothing in common with any genetic tie to any creature.

You can have totally separate creatures that have no tie whatsoever using the same genetic structures to build muscle tissue for example. 

It is a total fabrication based on religious belief that there is some Cladistic table that proves evolution.  It is a pile of garbage from delusional morons who believe this crap.

There is a whole thread on nylon eating bacteria here it is. Bacteria has never evolved.  To this day it remains as bacteria.  The guy that argued with me and became nearly violent on this site is a PHD research scientist from Utah.

http://evolutionforum.info/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1259177739
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Oicurmtoyoy
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Seek Truth!

Posts: 20
Re: There is no evidence for evolution?
Reply #2 - Nov 14th, 2010 at 10:44am
 
As I said, similar genes imply common decent. It isn't absolute, but it is something that should be taken into consideration. It's also a good explanation for why we have families, genus's and the like. Because of this, it fits with Occam's razor. It simply fits with the evidence we have.

Fossils do the same. If you see a row of similar fossils, that's evidence. Evolution explains this evidence, thus it fits with Occam's razor.

I'm not going to pretend to know much about the fossil record, but I know that if you lined up the fossils in order of how they evolved, there would certainly be several transitional forms. This includes forms that go between different species. Archaeopteryx, for example, is a transition between reptile and bird. Tiktaalik is a transition between fish and amphibians.
We do have transitional forms all over the place. If you don't believe me, cheapo talkorigins.org
specifically http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
It's the 6th question.

Evolution takes millions of years. Even with selective breeding, it would take tens of thousands of years to create a new genus, or change one into the other. Furthermore, that would only work if we were specifically trying to do so. The point of the example was to show that evolution happens to a degree.

Genetic evidence shows that related creatures are not clustered. Creatures with similar DNA are found relatively close together. For example, marsupials are found mostly in
Australia. Again Occam's razor.

The hard evidence of evolution is on: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

And how exactly is evolution a religious belief? I see no dogma, nor any worship. I see no churches, no holy wars and no belief in the supernatural.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Oicurmtoyoy
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Seek Truth!

Posts: 20
Re: There is no evidence for evolution?
Reply #3 - Nov 14th, 2010 at 11:17am
 
2 things I forgot to mention

1. Vestigial organs. Evolution also explains why vestigial organs exist, like hand bones in whales, or maybe those little red thing in the corners of you eyes. They're explained completely by evolution, which makes it fit even more with Occam's razor.

2. You said that you had evidence that contradicts evolution. I recall you saying this in our you tube discussion. please present it.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: There is no evidence for evolution?
Reply #4 - Nov 21st, 2010 at 8:21am
 
Oicurmtoyoy wrote on Nov 14th, 2010 at 10:44am:
As I said, similar genes imply common decent. It isn't absolute, but it is something that should be taken into consideration. It's also a good explanation for why we have families, genus's and the like. Because of this, it fits with Occam's razor. It simply fits with the evidence we have.

Fossils do the same. If you see a row of similar fossils, that's evidence. Evolution explains this evidence, thus it fits with Occam's razor.

I'm not going to pretend to know much about the fossil record, but I know that if you lined up the fossils in order of how they evolved, there would certainly be several transitional forms. This includes forms that go between different species. Archaeopteryx, for example, is a transition between reptile and bird. Tiktaalik is a transition between fish and amphibians.
We do have transitional forms all over the place. If you don't believe me, cheapo talkorigins.org
specifically http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
It's the 6th question.

Evolution takes millions of years. Even with selective breeding, it would take tens of thousands of years to create a new genus, or change one into the other. Furthermore, that would only work if we were specifically trying to do so. The point of the example was to show that evolution happens to a degree.

Genetic evidence shows that related creatures are not clustered. Creatures with similar DNA are found relatively close together. For example, marsupials are found mostly in
Australia. Again Occam's razor.

The hard evidence of evolution is on: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

And how exactly is evolution a religious belief? I see no dogma, nor any worship. I see no churches, no holy wars and no belief in the supernatural.



When you have no evidence that shows this idea as being even plausible, and people beleive in it, then it is a mythology.  It is based on some old religious nonsense from about 2600 years ago.
The basic premise was that all life came from the sea.

There is NO diffferecnce between that garbage and any made up religion.

Faith, assumption, belief, and ideas being presented with religous dogma, is not sciecne.
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: There is no evidence for evolution?
Reply #5 - Nov 21st, 2010 at 10:20am
 
Oicurmtoyoy wrote on Nov 14th, 2010 at 11:17am:
2 things I forgot to mention

1. Vestigial organs. Evolution also explains why vestigial organs exist, like hand bones in whales, or maybe those little red thing in the corners of you eyes. They're explained completely by evolution, which makes it fit even more with Occam's razor.

2. You said that you had evidence that contradicts evolution. I recall you saying this in our you tube discussion. please present it.



This is one of the important posts on here, so I used "Sex" in the title to get you here.


In science we do not work with reasonable doubt, nor with analogy at all.  We do not use any assumptions at all and call that "truth".  We do not elevate a theory to the level of facts. A theory must be proven millions of times to be near perfect before it can be considered to be scientific law.

This is how a real scientist keeps nonsense from entering into science.

   A real scientists has no beliefs. NONE. Beliefs are "things" like "folk lore" and "fairy tales",  that have no evidence but are believed anyway. There is never any real full truth in beliefs.  If they feed you partial truths to get you to believe, get away from them.  And you never believe any teacher, any PHD and scientist until you have tested EVERYTHING they say. Never accept feculence like "evolutionary pressure" until you have seen this for yourself. If the pressure doesn't cause evolution into a totally new genus or extremely different morphology then it is not evolution.

In real science we only work with the evidence.   You do not understand that testable, repeatable (millions of times and by any one) is science.  If you can't test for something, then it is not science.  You cannot project belief on evidence.

There is no evidence for evolution at all, and all the evidence only points to:

1/ Creatures appear.
2/ Creatures remain the same for millions of years.
3/ Creatures have gone extinct and looked exactly the same as when they came.
4/ All of the evidence we have on creatures now living and we have their fossils show no evolution, no changing morphology for 110 Million years for the crock, and 125 Million for the mosquito.
5/ There is no evidence in DNA of any evolution.
6/ There is no evolution taking place today. There are no transitional creatures. They all look the same as in the ancient fossils. 

7/ There is only one set of conclusions to all the evidence:
This is all the facts we have, without opinions, and is based on absolute empirical, PHYSICAL, evidence:

A.Creatures come into existence with no trail of any evidence of any transition from anything that came before. Huge gaps are not to be filled in with faith and belief.

B. All prior versions look the same, but may be bigger, smaller and have a few differences, but is only reflective of the same foundational genetic coding.

C. All the fossil record shows is that creatures remained the same morphology for the entire time they exited and still exist.

D. They never break the boundaries of their foundational genetic coding.

E. Creatures adapt to the environment to survive as the same creatures. They never are forced to evolve by any "magical" process.

F. When the environment becomes to difficult for them to survive, they go extinct.

G. The dating system for replacement fossils is atrocious. It is based on too many assumptions and is not science at all. Dating the ground around the fossils is never the same as dating the bones with historical accuracy.  There is no way to date replacement fossils ACCURATELY. This is why there are so many "out of place" fossils, and you cannot use any of the replacement fossil data with accuracy.

The mythology of this crap belief:

H. There is no such thing as evolutionary pressure that causes creatures to change into completely different species or genus (break the boundaries of their genetic coding).

I. Because there are similar DNA constructs in fish and in humans, for example, does not show any link between humans and fish. It only shows that there are only so many ways to construct body parts in all creatures. There are only so many minerals, so many proteans, so many elements, molecules on this earth. The Earth is finite, not infinite as these foolish, evodelusionsists,  people try to imply.

J. Even when you separate a species for up to 2 million years it is possible for it to breed with the other separated species.  Speciation and not being able to breed with a prior generation is not evidence of evolution. It is evidence of genetics.
--You, for example, may not be able to  breed with an ancient human ancestor, because of the well known facts of genetics.  People who mental masturbate about ways to show "evodelusion" will use crap like this to brainwash people.

K. If creatures remain the same as what they were, there is no evolutoin.

If it remains a lizard and looks the same, there is no evolution.
If it remains as a dog, no evolution.
If it remains as a human, no evolution.
If it remains as bacteria, no evolution.
If it remains as  a fruit fly, no evolution.
Genetics, interbreeding, and hybridization is not evolution.

L. Speciation is not proof of evolution, but just how genetics works for the creatures to survive as the same creatures,  as things in the environment change.

M. To have evolution, you must absolutely prove that creatures have evolved into a new genus or even a completely different member of a new species.  There is no evidence of this on this planet.

N.  ERV's only show a genetic links and interbreeding.  It does not show any evolution no some prior creature that was the common ancestor (This is utter nonsense).  You have to have physical evidence, (the actual mythological) creature with DNA to back this, and there is none.  Without the belief this ERV "evidence" has many plausibilities and each refutes evolution. Evodelusionists never look at any that obviously refute their religious beliefs.  These fools only allow what fits the belief and unfortunately there is plenty of evidence contrary to the belief.

===================================
Your analogy is worthless as all these screwy analogies used to brainwash children.

IF you were to actually open your eyes and not come from the brainwashing, what I teach is easy to see in ALL the evidence.

Now where is you absolute evidence "for" evolution?  It must be physical, irrefutable, have no other plausibility and fits all the evidence perfectly.   It must contain no opinions based on belief.

If you can refute anything I teach, you would have to be a magician.  None of what I teach comes from any belief. It is based on what we actually have as evidence.
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: There is no evidence for evolution?
Reply #6 - Nov 21st, 2010 at 10:26am
 
The latest thing that seems to convince "students" that evolution is science is this "tree of life" idea.

Scientists are mapping the DNA of many creatures and that allows all the DNA patterns to be compared.  You would think this makes "valid" sense.  It doesn't, particularly when there is nothing in the physical world that would verify this as real.

Here is the basic logical fallacy of this premise.

They believe that finding similar DNA patterns ALWAYS shows an evolutionary contact between creatures.  This is a sad assumption based solely on belief.

Genetics, in particular, DNA shows patterns used by the creature to "grow" itself from the materials on this earth. It shows how the "ideas" or coding contained in the DNA programming progresses to RNA and on to cell development. That is what is shows, and only what it shows.

It does not speak of links between creatures at all, unless there is a hell of a lot in common and when you look at the creatures the morphology, the type of creature ie, such as, mammal, 4 legs, jaw shape, vertebrae, air breathing, and general morphology is the same.  You must look at all parts of the "picture" and not fall for assumptions and inferences as if it was science.

An example of this increadibly erroneous concept is that humans evolved from fish, because we have a very tiny set of similar DNA patterns between fish and man.

Read this whole thing, then page 12 and 13 in particular.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2720184/pdf/1404.pdf/?tool=pmcentrez

This whole thing is based on a pure logical fallacy that cannot and has never been shown in any physical evidence.

Here is the problem with this idea.  People of limited intelligence, can only see one thing at a time, and they are "narrow minded" believers in that thing that they believe in.

The first words of this paper starts out with the assumption that "Evolution is true" when it is not even a good hypothesis any more.

They do not realize that the world is extremely finite and that finding the same cell structures in a human and a fish would be logical for a totally different reason.

That reason is clear when you look at the total number of physical elements in this world in the periodic table of the elements.  That is a very finite set of "building blocks" to construct the world with.

Now, go look at the total number of amino acids there have ever been found on this earth.  Amino acids are the building blocks of proteans. 
here is a decent article on amino acids. I find not  much wrong with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid

So, how many amino acids are there?

How many ways are there to assemble the building blocks of this world to construct the muscle tissue in a mouse, for instance?  How many ways are there to construct muscle tissue in a horse, a human, a fish, a dog.....
How do you  make an organic substance that will be strong enough to move a creature around by impulses from the brain that stimulate the muscles to move.

Because of the extremely finite, extremely limited building blocks to create organic life from, it is 100% probable that those ways of building organic structures in creatures will be repeated over and over and over. 

This has nothing to do with the idea that humans evolved from fish.  The idea of humans evolving from fish because of some similar DNA structures in fish and humans is utterly idiotic.  I would like to further say that it is an insane assumption that can only come from brainwashing and for no other reason.  Shocked Cheesy Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

It is logical fallacies like this that are ruining science.
These fools spend thousands of hours trying to prove "Evodelusionism" as if it were science, instead of curing illnesses and doing something good for mankind.  What a waste of the human mind.
And this pseudo science, religion of Evodelusionism has taken its toll on humanity long enough.  This idea of creatures crossing genetic lines is ridiculous.  It has never happened on this earth and there is no physical evidence for it.

Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Oicurmtoyoy
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Seek Truth!

Posts: 20
Re: There is no evidence for evolution?
Reply #7 - Nov 22nd, 2010 at 1:50pm
 
There is plausible evidence, you just deny it's existence. Denial is your only real premise for anything you've said, and it's not a very good one.

Any you talk about Dogma. What Dogma? I've never herd of any "evolutionary dogma", if there is any, then I'd love to hear about it.

And stop talking about assumptions. You've never pointed out any assumptions, you've just claimed that they exist, rather vaguely, even when we're on a specific subject. I've yet to see anything that a reasonable person would conciser an assumption.

And stop talking about beliefs. Faith is something scientists don't have, but beliefs not so much. Scientists have beliefs, but only if it's supported by evidence. Scientists believe in evolution, because of the evidence. I've given you the same evidence time and time again, and you have yet to refute any of it. All you do is go on a rant about what real scientists do, which is exactly what they do with evolution. you have not explained how any of this is not applied to evolution.

Btw, not having an observed example of 1 genus growing into another dosen't disprove evolution. Nobody has observed reality being warped around mass either, but we still believe in gravity.

And we can test evolution. The caused another species of bacteria to evolve the ability to digest nylon in a lab. every time you catch a cold, your antibodies evolve slightly to deal with that specific strain. We can't observe one genus evolving into another, but then again we can't
observe reality being warped around mass either.

There is evidence for evolution at all, and all the evidence points to:

1/ Creatures appear.
2/ Some creatures remain the same for millions of years, others change.
3/ Creatures have gone extinct and some looked exactly the same as when they came, but many change.
4/ Most of the evidence we have on creatures now living and we have their fossils show evolution, no changing morphology for 110 Million years for the crock, and 125 Million for the mosquito. Many changes for insects, mammals, birds and the like.
5/ There is evidence in DNA of any evolution. Similar DNA geographically distributed in a pattern which suggests evolution.
6/ There is evolution taking place today. Nylon eating Bacteria, Squirrels developing immunity to snake poison and the like.There are transitional creatures. Every other creature in the fossil record is a transition between the previous and the next. There are very few non-transitional forms. Only some look the same as in the ancient fossils.
7/ There is only one set of conclusions to all the evidence:
This is all the facts we have, without opinions, and is based on absolute empirical, PHYSICAL, evidence:

A.Creatures come into existence with a clear trail evidence of transition from organisms that came before. Huge gaps are not to be filled in with faith and belief, they are filled with countless fossils.

B. All prior versions look the different, and may be bigger, smaller and have a few differences, but is only reflective of the same foundational genetic coding, from a common ancestor. The cumulative differences add up.
-You yourself said that you can't tell how creatures looked from just the bones. By saying they all looked the same, you're violating your own rule of assumption. This is unless, you want to concede that logical interpretation =/= assumption.

C. All the fossil record shows is that creatures' morphology changed, but stayed the same in a few examples.

D. They gradually break the boundaries of their foundational genetic coding, through genetic mutation.

E. Creatures adapt to the environment to survive as the same creatures. They never are forced to evolve by any "magical" process. They do however, naturally change through genetic mutations that undeniably occur. Logically, these should add up over time. The fossil record implies that they do.

F. When the environment becomes to difficult for them to survive, they go extinct, or evolve rapidly. Both the former and the latter have been observed.

G. The dating systems(plural) for fossils are fine, and all agree with each other. They are based on logic, not assumptions. Dating the ground around the fossils is never the same as dating the bones with historical accuracy, which is why there are other methods used.

-I've never heard of a "replacement fossil", nor have I heard of a significant number of implacable fossils.

H. There is no such thing as evolutionary pressure that causes creatures to change into completely different species or genus in a few million years. There is such thing as evolutionary pressure that causes organisms to change. These changes accumulate, and add up to a species/genus change.

I. Similar DNA constructs in fish and in humans, for example, does imply a link between humans and fish. It only shows that there are only so many ways to construct body parts in most creatures, but it does help evolution fit with Occam's Razor. There are only so many minerals, so many proteins, so many elements, molecules on this Earth, but there is a practically infinite arrangements for these.

J. If species are separated for millions of years, they may or may not be able to interbreed. It depends on the amount of different mutations they have undergone in this time.

K. If creatures remain the same as what they were, there is no evolution.

If it remains a lizard and looks the same, there is no evolution.
If it remains as a dog, no evolution.
If it remains as a human, no evolution.
If it remains as bacteria, no evolution.
If it remains as  a fruit fly, no evolution.

This however, is not always the case. Speciation takes a long time, thus it has never been observed first hand, but nor have many things. Dark matter has never been observed first hand, nor has gravity (the theoretical part, not the basic force). These things still fit with Occam's razor.

L. Speciation is proof of evolution. How genetics works for the creatures to survive as the slightly different creatures, as things in the environment change, is a good definition of evolution, even if these creatures are indistinguishable to the human eye.

M. To have evolution, you could prove that creatures have evolved into a new genus or even a completely different member of a new species. There is evidence of this on this planet, but some people deny the pattern.

N.  ERV's only show a genetic links and interbreeding. It implys evolution from a common ancestor. It makes prefect sense. You have to have physical evidence, which is present in the fossil record. There is no historical genetic evidence, but there dosen't need to be, it's implicit.  Without the belief this ERV "evidence" has many possibilities and many refute evolution. However, evolution fits with Occam's razor, making it the most plausible one. Evolution has no counter evidence that I've ever heard of, only other possibilities, which have virtually no proof.

===================================
I don't recall making an analogy, would you care to point it out?

And I do see all the evidence, you don't. You've completely ignored the evidence that I presented, while presenting none of your own.

My evidence has been given again and again. It's irrefutable and physical. There are a few other possibilities, but despite their plausibility, they don't fit with Occam's razor. This is similar to how a God pulling down everything is a plausible alternate explanation for gravity. It can't be disproved, but there's no reason to believe it, thus the current theory of gravity (the reality bending stuff) stands.

I can't refute anything you teach, because you've taught nothing. Making claims that the fossil record shows nothing, when it clearly does, dosen't qualify as teaching. Unless you count teaching your own opinion as teaching, in which case I can easily refute everything you've "taught".

You are incredibly hypocritical. You do everything you claim we do, while we do not do it.

The "tree of life" makes perfect sense, it's supported by the fossil record and DNA.

They believe that finding similar DNA patterns geographically distributed in a pattern which makes sense, shows evolution 99.9% of the time. This is especially so, when it's backed by a trail of fossils. This is a logical deduction, not an assumption.

Genetics, in particular, DNA shows patterns used by the creature to "grow" itself from the materials on this earth. It shows how the coding contained in the DNA programming progresses to RNA and on to cell development. That is what is shows, and only what it shows. This is evolution on a minor scale. Logically, this will add up over massive periods of time, creating new species after hundreds of millions of years.

It does show of links between creatures as morphology between most creatures is similar, 4 limbs, air breathing, and general morphology is the same. These gaps grow further and further, just as evolution would dictate.

Humans evolved from fish, because we have a very tiny set of similar DNA patterns between fish and man. This is true of all land animals, to my knowledge, and there is a clear path descending towards fish, or acceding towards man.

I'll put this on old for now, other stuff to do.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2720184/pdf/1404.pdf/?tool=pmcentrez
and this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid

This whole thing is based on physical evidence, the likes of which are implicit, yet abundant, strongly implying evolution above all other possibilities. There is abundant positive evidence, and no negative evidence, thus it is to be believed.

I would argue that evolution has helped science, but I'm running out of time. I'll post some more tomorrow, but until then, feel free to respond to what I've already posted if you wish.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: There is no evidence for evolution?
Reply #8 - Nov 22nd, 2010 at 3:41pm
 
Oicurmtoyoy wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 1:50pm:
There is plausible evidence, you just deny it's existence. Denial is your only real premise for anything you've said, and it's not a very good one.

Any you talk about Dogma. What Dogma? I've never herd of any "evolutionary dogma", if there is any, then I'd love to hear about it.

And stop talking about assumptions. You've never pointed out any assumptions, you've just claimed that they exist, rather vaguely, even when we're on a specific subject. I've yet to see anything that a reasonable person would conciser an assumption.

And stop talking about beliefs. Faith is something scientists don't have, but beliefs not so much. Scientists have beliefs, but only if it's supported by evidence. Scientists believe in evolution, because of the evidence. I've given you the same evidence time and time again, and you have yet to refute any of it. All you do is go on a rant about what real scientists do, which is exactly what they do with evolution. you have not explained how any of this is not applied to evolution.

Btw, not having an observed example of 1 genus growing into another dosen't disprove evolution. Nobody has observed reality being warped around mass either, but we still believe in gravity.

And we can test evolution. The caused another species of bacteria to evolve the ability to digest nylon in a lab. every time you catch a cold, your antibodies evolve slightly to deal with that specific strain. We can't observe one genus evolving into another, but then again we can't
observe reality being warped around mass either.

There is evidence for evolution at all, and all the evidence points to:

1/ Creatures appear.
2/ Some creatures remain the same for millions of years, others change.
3/ Creatures have gone extinct and some looked exactly the same as when they came, but many change.
4/ Most of the evidence we have on creatures now living and we have their fossils show evolution, no changing morphology for 110 Million years for the crock, and 125 Million for the mosquito. Many changes for insects, mammals, birds and the like.
5/ There is evidence in DNA of any evolution. Similar DNA geographically distributed in a pattern which suggests evolution.
6/ There is evolution taking place today. Nylon eating Bacteria, Squirrels developing immunity to snake poison and the like.There are transitional creatures. Every other creature in the fossil record is a transition between the previous and the next. There are very few non-transitional forms. Only some look the same as in the ancient fossils.
7/ There is only one set of conclusions to all the evidence:
This is all the facts we have, without opinions, and is based on absolute empirical, PHYSICAL, evidence:

A.Creatures come into existence with a clear trail evidence of transition from organisms that came before. Huge gaps are not to be filled in with faith and belief, they are filled with countless fossils.

B. All prior versions look the different, and may be bigger, smaller and have a few differences, but is only reflective of the same foundational genetic coding, from a common ancestor. The cumulative differences add up.
-You yourself said that you can't tell how creatures looked from just the bones. By saying they all looked the same, you're violating your own rule of assumption. This is unless, you want to concede that logical interpretation =/= assumption.

C. All the fossil record shows is that creatures' morphology changed, but stayed the same in a few examples.

D. They gradually break the boundaries of their foundational genetic coding, through genetic mutation.

E. Creatures adapt to the environment to survive as the same creatures. They never are forced to evolve by any "magical" process. They do however, naturally change through genetic mutations that undeniably occur. Logically, these should add up over time. The fossil record implies that they do.

F. When the environment becomes to difficult for them to survive, they go extinct, or evolve rapidly. Both the former and the latter have been observed.

G. The dating systems(plural) for fossils are fine, and all agree with each other. They are based on logic, not assumptions. Dating the ground around the fossils is never the same as dating the bones with historical accuracy, which is why there are other methods used.

-I've never heard of a "replacement fossil", nor have I heard of a significant number of implacable fossils.

H. There is no such thing as evolutionary pressure that causes creatures to change into completely different species or genus in a few million years. There is such thing as evolutionary pressure that causes organisms to change. These changes accumulate, and add up to a species/genus change.

I. Similar DNA constructs in fish and in humans, for example, does imply a link between humans and fish. It only shows that there are only so many ways to construct body parts in most creatures, but it does help evolution fit with Occam's Razor. There are only so many minerals, so many proteins, so many elements, molecules on this Earth, but there is a practically infinite arrangements for these.

J. If species are separated for millions of years, they may or may not be able to interbreed. It depends on the amount of different mutations they have undergone in this time.

K. If creatures remain the same as what they were, there is no evolution.

If it remains a lizard and looks the same, there is no evolution.
If it remains as a dog, no evolution.
If it remains as a human, no evolution.
If it remains as bacteria, no evolution.
If it remains as  a fruit fly, no evolution.

This however, is not always the case. Speciation takes a long time, thus it has never been observed first hand, but nor have many things. Dark matter has never been observed first hand, nor has gravity (the theoretical part, not the basic force). These things still fit with Occam's razor.

L. Speciation is proof of evolution. How genetics works for the creatures to survive as the slightly different creatures, as things in the environment change, is a good definition of evolution, even if these creatures are indistinguishable to the human eye.

M. To have evolution, you could prove that creatures have evolved into a new genus or even a completely different member of a new species. There is evidence of this on this planet, but some people deny the pattern.

N.  ERV's only show a genetic links and interbreeding. It implys evolution from a common ancestor. It makes prefect sense. You have to have physical evidence, which is present in the fossil record. There is no historical genetic evidence, but there dosen't need to be, it's implicit.  Without the belief this ERV "evidence" has many possibilities and many refute evolution. However, evolution fits with Occam's razor, making it the most plausible one. Evolution has no counter evidence that I've ever heard of, only other possibilities, which have virtually no proof.

===================================
I don't recall making an analogy, would you care to point it out?

And I do see all the evidence, you don't. You've completely ignored the evidence that I presented, while presenting none of your own.

My evidence has been given again and again. It's irrefutable and physical. There are a few other possibilities, but despite their plausibility, they don't fit with Occam's razor. This is similar to how a God pulling down everything is a plausible alternate explanation for gravity. It can't be disproved, but there's no reason to believe it, thus the current theory of gravity (the reality bending stuff) stands.

I can't refute anything you teach, because you've taught nothing. Making claims that the fossil record shows nothing, when it clearly does, dosen't qualify as teaching. Unless you count teaching your own opinion as teaching, in which case I can easily refute everything you've "taught".

You are incredibly hypocritical. You do everything you claim we do, while we do not do it.

The "tree of life" makes perfect sense, it's supported by the fossil record and DNA.

They believe that finding similar DNA patterns geographically distributed in a pattern which makes sense, shows evolution 99.9% of the time. This is especially so, when it's backed by a trail of fossils. This is a logical deduction, not an assumption.

Genetics, in particular, DNA shows patterns used by the creature to "grow" itself from the materials on this earth. It shows how the coding contained in the DNA programming progresses to RNA and on to cell development. That is what is shows, and only what it shows. This is evolution on a minor scale. Logically, this will add up over massive periods of time, creating new species after hundreds of millions of years.

It does show of links between creatures as morphology between most creatures is similar, 4 limbs, air breathing, and general morphology is the same. These gaps grow further and further, just as evolution would dictate.

Humans evolved from fish, because we have a very tiny set of similar DNA patterns between fish and man. This is true of all land animals, to my knowledge, and there is a clear path descending towards fish, or acceding towards man.

I'll put this on old for now, other stuff to do.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2720184/pdf/1404.pdf/?tool=pmcentrez
and this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid

This whole thing is based on physical evidence, the likes of which are implicit, yet abundant, strongly implying evolution above all other possibilities. There is abundant positive evidence, and no negative evidence, thus it is to be believed.

I would argue that evolution has helped science, but I'm running out of time. I'll post some more tomorrow, but until then, feel free to respond to what I've already posted if you wish.


Everything you just posted is not Evidence for evolution, it is an interpretation by a believer in evolution.

It is all based on religious slogans that you bought into.

If there is no trail of PHYSICAL evidence then it does not exist.  All you have is your belief and religious slogans that have been brainwashed into your eager head to believe in this garbage.

I have refuted all of this stuff many times and on this forum, for your sake. 

If you only get your education from the people whom you allowed to indoctrinate you, then you are a fraud as a scientist. Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Oicurmtoyoy
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Seek Truth!

Posts: 20
Re: There is no evidence for evolution?
Reply #9 - Nov 23rd, 2010 at 11:05am
 
Instead of actually refuting things, you simply say "that's a delusional belief brought on by brainwashing and religious slogans". Oddly enough, that seems to be a slogan it's self. I defy you to name one slogan that I have used.

You can call it opinion, but I call it reasoning. Logical reasoning. If you want to call it anything else, then you have to demonstrate where there is a gap in reasoning. The part that takes a leap of faith, the specific part. If what I'm saying is not reasoning, then there should be a specific point that has a gap in reasoning, why not point it out?

And don't tell me to read the entire forum, I'll do that in my own time. Either give me a specific link, or repeat yourself. If you want to convince several people of the same thing, then you should be prepared to be repetitive. If not, then you shouldn't have even started this forum to begin with.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: There is no evidence for evolution?
Reply #10 - Nov 28th, 2010 at 12:37pm
 
Oicurmtoyoy wrote on Nov 23rd, 2010 at 11:05am:
Instead of actually refuting things, you simply say "that's a delusional belief brought on by brainwashing and religious slogans". Oddly enough, that seems to be a slogan it's self. I defy you to name one slogan that I have used.

You can call it opinion, but I call it reasoning. Logical reasoning. If you want to call it anything else, then you have to demonstrate where there is a gap in reasoning. The part that takes a leap of faith, the specific part. If what I'm saying is not reasoning, then there should be a specific point that has a gap in reasoning, why not point it out?

And don't tell me to read the entire forum, I'll do that in my own time. Either give me a specific link, or repeat yourself. If you want to convince several people of the same thing, then you should be prepared to be repetitive. If not, then you shouldn't have even started this forum to begin with.


Let me make this as clear as I can. When you were young did anyone tell you that "evolution was true"?  Did they repeat that with authority?  With love, and seemed to have a position in the world that would make you want to believe them?

Were there others around you that all believed and told you it was real? 

This is the foundation of cultural brainwashing.  These people who are in charge of science actually believe in what they teach. The problem is there is no evidence to back this idea of simple life forms evolving into complex. 

What they do is to project belief. When that PHD research geneticist was on here I asked him to teach me exactly how evolution is taught and all he produced was slogans that he deeply believed in, but which I repeatedly asked him to show me the absolute evidence or the scientific method used to cause that belief,  that would lead to those conclusions.

When he could not produce any foundation for the belief, he got angry.  I have an extreme IQ and I am an objective observer of life.  If someone can show me something that is true, then it is obvious to me and I understand most all of functional science.

But there is no evidence that would lead to even a slight acceptance of this idea of simple life forms having some ability to evolve into complex.  All the speciation we observed has never produced any evolution.

The first thing a real scientist does is to evaluate themselves and get outside of themselves.

If you  cannot get beyond the emotional ego controls your position in life has taken you, then you will never be a free thinker, nor will you be intelligent.

The world is what envelopes your mind and hides the truth from you.

What is obvious is not obvious until it becomes obvious.

There is no PHYSICAL evidence that has only one conclusion.  If it has more than one conclusion it is inconclusive and to be disregarded.  People who have religious beliefs are not scientists, they project their belief on science. This has been going on for as long as man has been around.

The need to have answers to questions that cannot be answered gives rise to all sorts of religious nonsense.  If we ever have the tools to totally demonstrate how life got here and how it is so diverse, it will be nice. But humanity is really in the dark ages on that subject.

In the future as it has in the past, people who believe in evolution will be looked upon as primitive and ignorant.  Just like those who thought the world is flat.

In the mean time, if you are to be honest with yourself, you can admit that this belief in evolution is based on a faith in what you want to believe, and is a mythological religion as all religions are.
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Oicurmtoyoy
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Seek Truth!

Posts: 20
Re: There is no evidence for evolution?
Reply #11 - Nov 29th, 2010 at 1:26pm
 
Actually, no. No one ever told me "evolution is true", and they certainly didn't do it in any loving way. They went out of their way to say "this is only a theory", and didn't assert any belief or disbelief.

And I'm pretty sure the others believe evolution. Not because they told me, I just assumed. It's not like there's a reason for the to disbelieve the facts, except for a few religious ones.

People don't discuss evolution outside of class anymore. I only remember one guy ever telling me his views on evolution, and he was saying that he disagreed with it.

So please stop talking about brainwashing, it took more brainwashing to teach me that 2+2=4.

There is evidence for evolution, but you don't refute it. Every time you are presented with evidence, you sidestep it with this brainwashing nonsense. If you actually refute the evidence, then it shouldn't really matter if I'm brainwashed or not. Btw, just saying something is a "magical belief based on opinion" isn't the same as a refutation.

And you told me about that PHD guy before, the one on the nylon eating bacteria thread right? I'm pretty sure he did produce a good foundation, you just ignored it and sidestepped every point he made. You're doing the same thing to me.

Saying you have a high IQ isn't helping either. You've said before, "don't believe anything anyone tells you". If I'm not to believe anyone, why should I believe you on this? Especially when you've proved that you can't even stick to a point. Sidestepping isn't very intelligent, unless you cover it up well. That's something you haven't done. All you do is tell people that they're brainwashed, when they say something that you can't handle.

And there's always more than one conclusion for every set of evidence. The question is, which is the most reasonable? Which best fits with Occam's razor? In this case, it's evolution, unless you'd care to point out a part of the theory, which makes an assumption, or dosen't explain the evidence. And don't tell me that there are tons of them, or that they're obvious. Name a specific assumption, or piece of unexplained evidence, then explain why it is such a huge hole.

And I would certainly those who believed in a flat earth primitive. Ignorant, not so much. That's a derogatory term, implying that they were somehow behind, uninformed would be much better. And quite frankly, despite being primitive and uninformed, they were using perfect reasoning. Any evidence they could get their hands on, which wasn't a lot, pointed to a flat earth. They didn't have all the evidence, but their reasoning was perfect.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: There is no evidence for evolution?
Reply #12 - Dec 2nd, 2010 at 3:11pm
 
Oicurmtoyoy wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 1:26pm:
Actually, no. No one ever told me "evolution is true", and they certainly didn't do it in any loving way. They went out of their way to say "this is only a theory", and didn't assert any belief or disbelief.

And I'm pretty sure the others believe evolution. Not because they told me, I just assumed. It's not like there's a reason for the to disbelieve the facts, except for a few religious ones.

People don't discuss evolution outside of class anymore. I only remember one guy ever telling me his views on evolution, and he was saying that he disagreed with it.

So please stop talking about brainwashing, it took more brainwashing to teach me that 2+2=4.

There is evidence for evolution, but you don't refute it. Every time you are presented with evidence, you sidestep it with this brainwashing nonsense. If you actually refute the evidence, then it shouldn't really matter if I'm brainwashed or not. Btw, just saying something is a "magical belief based on opinion" isn't the same as a refutation.

And you told me about that PHD guy before, the one on the nylon eating bacteria thread right? I'm pretty sure he did produce a good foundation, you just ignored it and sidestepped every point he made. You're doing the same thing to me.

Saying you have a high IQ isn't helping either. You've said before, "don't believe anything anyone tells you". If I'm not to believe anyone, why should I believe you on this? Especially when you've proved that you can't even stick to a point. Sidestepping isn't very intelligent, unless you cover it up well. That's something you haven't done. All you do is tell people that they're brainwashed, when they say something that you can't handle.

And there's always more than one conclusion for every set of evidence. The question is, which is the most reasonable? Which best fits with Occam's razor? In this case, it's evolution, unless you'd care to point out a part of the theory, which makes an assumption, or dosen't explain the evidence. And don't tell me that there are tons of them, or that they're obvious. Name a specific assumption, or piece of unexplained evidence, then explain why it is such a huge hole.

And I would certainly those who believed in a flat earth primitive. Ignorant, not so much. That's a derogatory term, implying that they were somehow behind, uninformed would be much better. And quite frankly, despite being primitive and uninformed, they were using perfect reasoning. Any evidence they could get their hands on, which wasn't a lot, pointed to a flat earth. They didn't have all the evidence, but their reasoning was perfect.


Here is what we know absolutely about this evolution religion.  There is no evidence for evolution.  Evolution has never passed a single real scientific test.  There is no way to test this theory.

And for absolute, anyone who believes in this has not really studied it. They have been brainwashed by believers who force this crap on weak minded people.
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: There is no evidence for evolution?
Reply #13 - Dec 2nd, 2010 at 3:26pm
 
Oicurmtoyoy wrote on Nov 14th, 2010 at 10:44am:
As I said, similar genes imply common decent. It isn't absolute, but it is something that should be taken into consideration. It's also a good explanation for why we have families, genus's and the like. Because of this, it fits with Occam's razor. It simply fits with the evidence we have.

Fossils do the same. If you see a row of similar fossils, that's evidence. Evolution explains this evidence, thus it fits with Occam's razor.

I'm not going to pretend to know much about the fossil record, but I know that if you lined up the fossils in order of how they evolved, there would certainly be several transitional forms. This includes forms that go between different species. Archaeopteryx, for example, is a transition between reptile and bird. Tiktaalik is a transition between fish and amphibians.
We do have transitional forms all over the place. If you don't believe me, cheapo talkorigins.org
specifically http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
It's the 6th question.

Evolution takes millions of years. Even with selective breeding, it would take tens of thousands of years to create a new genus, or change one into the other. Furthermore, that would only work if we were specifically trying to do so. The point of the example was to show that evolution happens to a degree.

Genetic evidence shows that related creatures are not clustered. Creatures with similar DNA are found relatively close together. For example, marsupials are found mostly in
Australia. Again Occam's razor.

The hard evidence of evolution is on: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

And how exactly is evolution a religious belief? I see no dogma, nor any worship. I see no churches, no holy wars and no belief in the supernatural.


This whole nonsense idea of evolutoin is only implication and inference and idiots like you who fall for this garbage.  If you want to be considered to be a real scientist, then stop believing without empirical, absolute, irrefutble, evidence.

Your HEMG Evodelusionism religion is nothing but magical processes, and mystical causes that have NO evidence, but are only believed by faith.
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Oicurmtoyoy
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Seek Truth!

Posts: 20
Re: There is no evidence for evolution?
Reply #14 - Dec 3rd, 2010 at 10:23am
 
You keep telling me that there is no evidence for evolution, even though I've repeatedly given you the evidence. You keep telling me that all the evidence is based on assumptions and beliefs. You also avoid a lot of my questions.

Here are some suggestions:
1. Stop wasting character space with meaningless insults. They only serve to erode your credibility.
2. Answer questions when they are asked.
3. Explain yourself. Not about the insults, not about this supposed "brainwashing". About your f**king point. If my points are based on assumptions, then tell me what the assumption is.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print