Evidence For And Against Evolution

[SkepticThinker]

I want to thank everyone that took their time and attempt to make evolution make sense but honestly, and with all due respect, it seems worse and more far fetched than religion. Everything is based off the past, nothing worth note that is observable today and seems to be riddled with assumptions and the best explanations seems to be "because that worked best even though there is 0 thought" or something along those lines.

That's not anywhere even close to anything anybody has said.

Tell me, are you sure you really want to understand evolution? Because it really doesn't seem like it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I want to thank everyone that took their time and attempt to make evolution make sense but honestly, and with all due respect, it seems worse and more far fetched than religion. Everything is based off the past, nothing worth note that is observable today and seems to be riddled with assumptions and the best explanations seems to be "because that worked best even though there is 0 thought" or something along those lines.

What are you talking about? Most of the evidence is what is observable by today. By your standards we could not convict anyone in a murder trial.

And what "assumptions" ? Please be precise. You cannot throw false allegations out there. It appears that at best you don't understand and you won't let yourself understand. I would suggest looking into that. What are you afraid of?

 

[Jose Fly]

I want to thank everyone that took their time and attempt to make evolution make sense but honestly, and with all due respect, it seems worse and more far fetched than religion. Everything is based off the past, nothing worth note that is observable today and seems to be riddled with assumptions and the best explanations seems to be "because that worked best even though there is 0 thought" or something along those lines.

I'll tell you what I saw from you (and I've seen such behavior before). You came into this thread and asked for some info, but once that info was provided you cut and run rather than address or discuss it further. That tells me your requests and questions were not asked in good faith, and were instead attempts to "stump the evolutionists". But once you realized we hadn't been stumped, you posted the above, which is little more than "I don't care what you all have posted, I'm still right and I'm leaving".

Such behavior doesn't speak well of you.

 

[Earthtank]

but once that info was provided you cut and run rather than address or discuss it further.

False. The info makes no sense which is why i do not wish to discuss it further.

 

[Earthtank]

What are you talking about? Most of the evidence is what is observable by today

The best evidence you have that we can observe today when it come to humans are that our eyebrows have changed over a very long time. You mentioned 50-150 mutations in a persons DNA yet, have nothing to show for it. My questions were all very specific to us as humans and no one has shown a thread of validity to it. What has changed or evolved in us as humans? Still waiting for an answer. Things like lactose intolerant and whatnot do not answer that question (not sure if it was you or someone else that brought that up, sorry for the confusion)

 

[Jose Fly]

False. The info makes no sense which is why i do not wish to discuss it further.

That reads like an excuse to me. You asked for evidence that showed humans are still evolving. You were given very specific, layperson-friendly information on that, yet you ignored it. And now you're leaving in a bit of a snit.

What other conclusion did you think such behavior would lead us to?

 

[Skwim]

I'll tell you what I saw from you (and I've seen such behavior before). You came into this thread and asked for some info, but once that info was provided you cut and run rather than address or discuss it further. That tells me your requests and questions were not asked in good faith, and were instead attempts to "stump the evolutionists". But once you realized we hadn't been stumped, you posted the above, which is little more than "I don't care what you all have posted, I'm still right and I'm leaving".

Such behavior doesn't speak well of you.

In my opinion, a

.

 

[Jose Fly]

In my opinion, a View attachment 33373​

.

Either way, it was a pretty quick flame out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

False. The info makes no sense which is why i do not wish to discuss it further.

Correction, perhaps it makes no sense to you. Whose fault is that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The best evidence you have that we can observe today when it come to humans are that our eyebrows have changed over a very long time. You mentioned 50-150 mutations in a persons DNA yet, have nothing to show for it. My questions were all very specific to us as humans and no one has shown a thread of validity to it. What has changed or evolved in us as humans? Still waiting for an answer. Things like lactose intolerant and whatnot do not answer that question (not sure if it was you or someone else that brought that up, sorry for the confusion)

And the typical creationist inability to be honest arises. This is a sign of fear. Also you did not follow through with what you agreed to. Discuss one topic at a time. Do you want to know how we know how many mutations that you have? That is easily shown. All of my claims are easily shown. But I can see that you just want to run away. And you cannot demand answers at this point in time. You know that you are wrong, you are only afraid to learn how we know that you are wrong.

 

[Astrophile]

Similar to this one. Instead of telling me what I don't understand, and instead of showing me any fossils or living animals in which there are signals (absolute and utter signs) of micro evolution with proof these beings were evolving into another form, your recent posts are similar to the above. Whatever they're called, those dinosaurs that portrayed vestages of feathers and which scientists claim became birds, do not show the process or that they actually, truly, verifiably evolved to another verified form, in these micro steps. None. If I am wrong, please tell me and show the "evidence." Thank you.

There are close anatomical similarities between dinosaurs and birds. Dinosaurs appear in the fossil record during the Late Triassic, before the first fossil birds (Late Jurassic). According to Feathered dinosaur - Wikipedia and Epidexipteryx - Wikipedia , the first feathered dinosaurs, such as Epidexipteryx, may have appeared during the Oxfordian stage or even during the Middle Jurassic, millions of years before the first birds. The first fossil birds obviously must have had ancestors, and the similarities between dinosaurs and birds imply that these ancestors were feathered dinosaurs. Can you suggest any better hypothesis, and support it with evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Speaking of feathered dinosaurs. One recent find was that of a feathered dinosaur tail preserved in amber:

First Dinosaur Tail Found Preserved in Amber

 

[gnostic]

I want to thank everyone that took their time and attempt to make evolution make sense but honestly, and with all due respect, it seems worse and more far fetched than religion.

Really?

So you have no problems with the followings...

1. God can create all “kinds” of birds (“winged fowls”), marine life, and land animals from nothing?
2. God can magically turn dust into a living adult human male (eg Adam)?
3. God can magically use and turn one of Adam’s ribs into a living adult female?
4. A serpent can talk human language? (The other example of animal that can talk in the human language is the donkey in Numbers 22:22-25, the story of Balaam.)

All my questions above, are regarding to “life” on Earth, since you think evolution “is more far-fetched than religion”, so I left out God’s creation of land, sky (heaven or firmament), sun, moon, stars, day and night, etc, and just focused on life.

Serpent or snake, and donkey are biologically incapable of speaking the human languages. I am not saying snake and donkey cannot respectively communicate to other snakes and donkeys. They are just not capable of speaking in human tongues, like in Genesis 3 and Numbers 22.

In the Qur’an, King Solomon was capable of understand the languages of birds and ants, and to speak to either.

The only times you would see other animals being able to speak in such manners, are in stories of myths, fairytales and fables, and in modern children books, in fictional novels, comics, cartoons, tv shows and movies.

Nowhere in biology, or more specifically in evolution that show snakes or lizards, donkeys or other equine animals, are capable of speaking in the human language.

Examples of modern stories, Disney’s (Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy, etc) and Warner Bros’ cartoons (Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, etc), Francis the talking mule. If you think any of these cartoons are far-fetched, why are the OT’s talking serpent and donkey exception?

The talking serpent and donkey found in the OT, are far-fetched.

Do you seriously believe in talking snake or donkey?

Then you have the creation of animals as well as humans.

Do you seriously think that god can create fishes, birds and land animals from nothing?

One day, they didn’t exist, and in the next day they do exist.

How aren’t any of these creations, not be far-fetched?

Then you would dust turning into a living person, a man named later as Adam. How is that possible?

You know what dust is?

Dust are waste byproduct from inorganic or organic matters.

From inorganic matters, dust often comes the process of redox, a chemical reaction, known as reduction and oxidation, where there are transfer of electrons, so that while one matter loses electrons, other substance gain electrons. This often leave residuals in the form of dust. For instance, metals exposed to air or liquid containing oxygen, will cause oxidation known as rust, which are form of dust.

In organic matters, eg dust can come skins of humans, that have dried out, become flaky, and eventually turn to dust. These dusts coming from organic sources, are lifeless, and cannot be turn back into living cells.

Dust cannot be transformed into a living human being, so the story of Adam’s creation is “far-fetched”.

Two humans cannot suddenly appeared out of nowhere.

And a woman cannot be created from a man’s rib. A rib bone cannot magically transformed into a living adult human female.

The Eden story would also suggest that men should have fewer ribs than women, but if you looked at skeletal remains of man and woman, they have the same numbers of ribs. For centuries people who believed in Genesis thought man had one pair of rib less than a woman, but that is clearly false belief.

Someone here at RF thought this was cloning. But he clearly misunderstood what cloning is.

Cloning involved growing a cell(s) into a living organism that were taken from another living body. When you do cloning, the cloned body should have the same sex as the original. So if the cells were taken from a male, then the clone should also be male too. And it would be the same with cells from females, so any clone would also be female.

If Eve was really Adam’ clone, then she should really be a “he”.

This rib-transforming-into-woman is also far-fetched.

 

[Valjean]

I want to thank everyone that took their time and attempt to make evolution make sense but honestly, and with all due respect, it seems worse and more far fetched than religion. Everything is based off the past, nothing worth note that is observable today and seems to be riddled with assumptions and the best explanations seems to be "because that worked best even though there is 0 thought" or something along those lines.

I don't understand why you feel the process is far fetched. Evolution has been directly observed -- today. Evolution posits no processes that aren't familiar and easily observed, it's intuitive. The process has been intentionally and successfully duplicated by farmers and herders for millennia. It's predictive and is used for many current applications.
Only the succession of slowly evolving organisms and progressive anatomical changes are confined to the past.

Do you believe organisms have not changed; that they've always existed in their present form; that beagles and Rhode Island Reds have roamed the Earth from the beginning? How do you explain all the fossil evidence for the many creatures that no longer exist? What happened to them, and why?

The religious "explanation" as I understand it, is that animals and plants were magically poofed into existence, fully formed, by an invisible entity we have no empirical evidence of. This seems to me a much more unbelievable claim than the ToE, which requires nothing unfamiliar, unevidenced or untestable for the process to proceed.

 

[Valjean]

I figured that you might figure that language development, from one language to another, is a form of evolution. I suppose you surmise as well that genes connected with language development also changed with the change of language? The development of language is certainly interesting. I am not surprised you believe that is like biologic evolution, as if from one biological form to another.

"Evolution" and "change" are synonyms. Don't you believe languages change?
No-one is saying the mechanisms of change are the same. It's just an example of how small changes can accumulate.

Why would you connect language change to genetic change? You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole process; you seem 'reasoning challenged'.

The problem with "micro evolution" is that there is no fossil evidence of such, is there? While I think there is not, perhaps you can offer more than say-so that there is fossil evidence of micro evolution and show me that I'm wrong. Thanks. And I really do appreciate the answers to help along.

The fossil evidence for microevolution is the macroevolution of fossils themselves. They wouldn't be there if they hadn't "macroevolved," and you can't have macroevolution without microevolution.

 

[Valjean]

From macroevolution is surmised microevolution. Are you saying that is no longer part of the theory? (Besides, a dinosaur with feathers is not showing micro OR macro evolution. It is showing that there was a body that looked like a dinosaur that had feathers on it. How many of those were found, by the way? And while we're on it, how many fossils of the common supposed ancestor of chimpanzees, bonobos and humans have been found?)

Do you think your DNA is identical to that of your parents and siblings? If no, then you believe in microevolution.

LOL, it obviously means nothing to those that surmise about fossils having evolved through micro or macro, coming up from bacteria surmised from the ocean or maybe outer space to the greater ape population. It's mostly a guessing game.

So what's your theory of the fossils?

 

[Valjean]

The more I hear your answers, and especially the non-answers in the form of personal attack, the more I am convinced, including reading of the Rare Earth book, that evolution is a science of conjecture.

Conjecture? Guesswork? Who cares? What does it matter what initiates a line of research? Wasn't Einstein's theory of relativity initiated by a dream?

It doesn't matter where the inspiration comes from. What matters is the process used to follow up on it, the scientific method.

 

[YoursTrue]

What's sad is that your weak attempt at sarcasm is closer to the truth than you realize. NEED drives advancement. For tens of thousands of years, man had no need for writing. The advent of trade created a need for accounting and record keeping. Gorillas have no need for writing. Neither do alligators or birds or cockroaches.

They might have a need to keep records, maybe even cave writing to warn other gorillas, birds, cockroaches, of disasters that befell them, and what to look out for. And it seems you're saying out of the hundreds of thousands of years humans existed, they did not need to keep records of trading until more recently. Like the past 5,000 years or so. As if you have records that they didn't trade before that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you think your DNA is identical to that of your parents and siblings? If no, then you believe in microevolution.
So what's your theory of the fossils?

I understand the concept of microevolution. And I think the brain and consciousness has something to do with inherited characteristics, too. But that's my thought. For instance, musicians may tend to have musically inclined children. And highly education people may also give birth to intellectual children. Not saying this is not imbedded somehow in the genes. But so far I have not seen any instances of real, actual fossils of microevolution. Dinosaurs with feathers and embryos with lizard-like limbs does not signify microevolution as if they are or might be, or have been in a line of evolution from, let's say, dinosaurs to birds, and lizards to humans. It signifies that there was something said to be a dinosaur that had feathers, and that a human embryo is said to have something that looks like lizard limbs.
By the way, as I was reading about this, the terms can be interchanged and misused insofar as evolution biologically is concerned, or cultural evolution, leading to overspeaking one another.
A dog that is bred to develop short legs, such as dachshunds, can interbreed to the point that it would take a long time, if ever, to get that breed to longer legs. That is not the evolution I am speaking of. They are still dogs. Nothing to indicate they go on to whatever dogs are said to go on to be in the evolutionary chain.

 

[Valjean]

They might have a need to keep records, maybe even cave writing to warn other gorillas, birds, cockroaches, of disasters that befell them, and what to look out for. And it seems you're saying out of the hundreds of thousands of years humans existed, they did not need to keep records of trading until more recently. Like the past 5,000 years or so. As if you have records that they didn't trade before that.

They lived as hunter-gatherers. Any trade would be between neighboring bands; simple, one-time exchanges. No records needed. Of what possible use would records have been?