Evidence For And Against Evolution

[YoursTrue]

Because all of the scientific evidence confirms that.

Still no real substantial evidence for macro evolution showing growth between species, kinds, whatever you want to call them. Just guesswork continuing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One does not have to be an atheist to examine biological evidence and work with it. Questions have arisen as I see the news as scientists examine stem cells and perhaps growing a new(?) brain.

That is true. I never implied otherwise. But all of the scientific evidence supports evolution. There is none for creationism.

I asked you this once already I think:

What reasonable test could show creationism to be wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still no real substantial evidence for macro evolution showing growth between species, kinds, whatever you want to call them. Just guesswork continuing.

This is not true and tells us that you do not understand the concept of evidence. Creationists do this quite often. It is a self defeating argument since the evidence for macro evolution is endless. Not only that macro evolution has been observed in real time.

Not only that you should never make a claim on the order of "guesswork". That is a very foolish claim to make since it puts the burden of proof upon you. If you cannot prove "guesswork" then it looks as if you were lying. Even if you did not purposefully try to mislead you still broke the Ninth Commandment since that is bearing false witness against your neighbor.

 

[gnostic]

Still no real substantial evidence for macro evolution showing growth between species, kinds, whatever you want to call them. Just guesswork continuing.

The evidence are there, so the problem isn’t within biology. The problem is that you have chosen to ignore them (evidence).

The evidence are found in the fossils, found in the rocks where the fossils were found, found in the DNA comparison of different extant and living species (eg DNA of humans and DNA of chimpanzees, are over 95% similar).

With the evidence supporting evolution, but you are claiming these are “guesswork”, then as subduction zone said, you must present evidence that contradictory to evolutionary biology, but at the same time, support your own claim.

Do you have evidence that debunk the DNA comparison? Do you have evidence that debunk the fossil records?

If you do have them, then present your evidence.

Well, so far, you haven’t presented any evidence that backed up your claim and debunk evolution. All you have done argue against evolution but presented no evidence that could back your claims.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is true. I never implied otherwise. But all of the scientific evidence supports evolution. There is none for creationism.

I asked you this once already I think:

What reasonable test could show creationism to be wrong?

Obviously, and what we have been discussing, scientific studies and postulations have shown that there are teachings in evolution that have been overturned. Including, but not the least or latest, Haeckel's drawings. I am now beginning to think, after examining the evidence you bring up and maintain, despite changing theories, that not only are evolutionists playing a big game, but it is bordering on the crazy.

 

[YoursTrue]

The evidence are there, so the problem isn’t within biology. The problem is that you have chosen to ignore them (evidence).

The evidence are found in the fossils, found in the rocks where the fossils were found, found in the DNA comparison of different extant and living species (eg DNA of humans and DNA of chimpanzees, are over 95% similar).

With the evidence supporting evolution, but you are claiming these are “guesswork”, then as subduction zone said, you must present evidence that contradictory to evolutionary biology, but at the same time, support your own claim.

Do you have evidence that debunk the DNA comparison? Do you have evidence that debunk the fossil records?

If you do have them, then present your evidence.

Well, so far, you haven’t presented any evidence that backed up your claim and debunk evolution. All you have done argue against evolution but presented no evidence that could back your claims.

Again -- biology does not conflict with truth. Postulating that humans emerged from organisms that had (or have) fish gills is weird and absurd. Fish are still alive and in their present form. So are humans. To say that because a fossil is said to have been dated millions of years ago and resembles a different form of life means evolution is absurd.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Obviously, and what we have been discussing, scientific studies and postulations have shown that there are teachings in evolution that have been overturned. Including, but not the least or latest, Haeckel's drawings. I am now beginning to think, after examining the evidence you bring up and maintain, despite changing theories, that not only are evolutionists playing a big game, but it is bordering on the crazy.

You are guilty of what you are accusing others of.

Can you tell me why you believe God to be a liar?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again -- biology does not conflict with truth. Postulating that humans emerged from organisms that had (or have) fish gills is weird and absurd. Fish are still alive and in their present form. So are humans. To say that because a fossil is said to have been dated millions of years ago and resembles a different form of life means evolution is absurd.

Why is it weird and absurd? Once again you make claims that you appear unable to support.

And why wouldn't fish be alive today? You are making the error of assuming a goal.

And once again why do you think that God is a liar?

 

[YoursTrue]

The evidence are there, so the problem isn’t within biology. The problem is that you have chosen to ignore them (evidence).

The evidence are found in the fossils, found in the rocks where the fossils were found, found in the DNA comparison of different extant and living species (eg DNA of humans and DNA of chimpanzees, are over 95% similar).

With the evidence supporting evolution, but you are claiming these are “guesswork”, then as subduction zone said, you must present evidence that contradictory to evolutionary biology, but at the same time, support your own claim.

Do you have evidence that debunk the DNA comparison? Do you have evidence that debunk the fossil records?

If you do have them, then present your evidence.

Well, so far, you haven’t presented any evidence that backed up your claim and debunk evolution. All you have done argue against evolution but presented no evidence that could back your claims.

I'm sorry you are lost. ("the lost one") I hope you can be found. In the meantime, I do not argue against evolution. As I've been looking into this, thanks to many posters here, I see that scientists reverse or change their presumptions. The evidence, theory, or postulations are there. Then they change their surmises about what it (the fossil evidence) means. Sometimes they say some human organs are not necessary (take that to mean not useful), then they say they are necessary, or useful, overturning their previous ideas. They argue against themselves, not me. I'm only following along their changing conclusions. Again -- I go back to the beginning, more or less, you can believe that humans evolved from apes. I do not. One reason is that there is no proof. Fossils are not proof that humans evolved from apes. What they may take as proof is that some apes look like humans, or vice versa, and skull findings can be in a somewhat similar shape. Therefore, evolutionists may say, "See? Humans evolved from apes." But where really is the proof? In a laboratory if someone sees a cell develop, that's proof that a cell is developing. But where is the proof that apes eventually evolved to become humans? Fossils? That's not proof. But you and others may think so. So be happy and enjoy whatever life there is if possible.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are guilty of what you are accusing others of.

Can you tell me why you believe God to be a liar?

You keep saying that, as you keep talking about evolution, with no substantiation. Again, thank you, the conversation has certainly proved enlightening.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why is it weird and absurd? Once again you make claims that you appear unable to support.

And why wouldn't fish be alive today? You are making the error of assuming a goal.

And once again why do you think that God is a liar?

Nope, I'm not assuming a goal. I'm going by what you call evidence. The evidence is that fish remain fish and are not becoming humans or on the way to becoming humans. That's proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sorry you are lost. ("the lost one") I hope you can be found. In the meantime, I do not argue against evolution. As I've been looking into this, thanks to many posters here, I see that scientists reverse or change their presumptions. The evidence, theory, or postulations are there. Then they change their surmises about what it (the fossil evidence) means. Sometimes they say some human organs are not necessary (take that to mean not useful), then they say they are necessary, or useful, overturning their previous ideas. They argue against themselves, not me. I'm only following along their changing conclusions. Again -- I go back to the beginning, more or less, you can believe that humans evolved from apes. I do not. One reason is that there is no proof. Fossils are not proof that humans evolved from apes. What they may take as proof is that some apes look like humans, or vice versa, and skull findings can be in a somewhat similar shape. Therefore, evolutionists may say, "See? Humans evolved from apes." But where really is the proof? In a laboratory if someone sees a cell develop, that's proof that a cell is developing. But where is the proof that apes eventually evolved to become humans? Fossils? That's not proof. But you and others may think so. So be happy and enjoy whatever life there is if possible.

You really need to quit breaking the Ninth Commandment.

You are supposedly a Christian. How do you justify constantly making false claims about scientists? Not knowing that you are spreading falsehoods is not a valid excuse. A Christian should take more care when making claims about others. Lying for Jesus is not a Get Out Of Jail Free Card.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You keep saying that, as you keep talking about evolution, with no substantiation. Again, thank you, the conversation has certainly proved enlightening.

That is a lie. I supported my claims but you could not deal with them honestly . So I tried to go over the basics. You ran away. Let's go over the basics so that you do not repeat your errors and false claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope, I'm not assuming a goal. I'm going by what you call evidence. The evidence is that fish remain fish and are not becoming humans or on the way to becoming humans. That's proof.

Then why ask the foolish question of.why there are still fish?

And you do not understand what is and is not evidence.

At times it seriously looks as if you want to look like a fool.

Let's go over the basics so that you do not keep repeating your errors.

 

[YoursTrue]

Then why ask the foolish question of.why there are still fish?

And you do not understand what is and is not evidence.

At times it seriously looks as if you want to look like a fool.

Let's go over the basics so that you do not keep repeating your errors.

OK, let's go over the basics, good idea. But before we do, and I hope you will, fish are not yet evolving, are they?

 

[YoursTrue]

That is a lie. I supported my claims but you could not deal with them honestly . So I tried to go over the basics. You ran away. Let's go over the basics so that you do not repeat your errors and false claims.

I'll go over the basics if you will answer my questions, one by one. Giving citations for your opinions.

 

[YoursTrue]

Then why ask the foolish question of.why there are still fish?

And you do not understand what is and is not evidence.

At times it seriously looks as if you want to look like a fool.

Let's go over the basics so that you do not keep repeating your errors.

Well, going back to this for a moment, let's take chimps or bonobos for a moment. If I remember correctly, homo sapiens are said to be closely related through an unknown ape type relative. Is this true as far as you're concerned?

 

[YoursTrue]

This is not true and tells us that you do not understand the concept of evidence. Creationists do this quite often. It is a self defeating argument since the evidence for macro evolution is endless. Not only that macro evolution has been observed in real time.

Not only that you should never make a claim on the order of "guesswork". That is a very foolish claim to make since it puts the burden of proof upon you. If you cannot prove "guesswork" then it looks as if you were lying. Even if you did not purposefully try to mislead you still broke the Ninth Commandment since that is bearing false witness against your neighbor.

So what's the evidence for macro evolution?

 

[Astrophile]

I'm sorry you are lost. ("the lost one") I hope you can be found. In the meantime, I do not argue against evolution. As I've been looking into this, thanks to many posters here, I see that scientists reverse or change their presumptions. The evidence, theory, or postulations are there. Then they change their surmises about what it (the fossil evidence) means. Sometimes they say some human organs are not necessary (take that to mean not useful), then they say they are necessary, or useful, overturning their previous ideas. They argue against themselves, not me. I'm only following along their changing conclusions. Again -- I go back to the beginning, more or less, you can believe that humans evolved from apes. I do not. One reason is that there is no proof. Fossils are not proof that humans evolved from apes. What they may take as proof is that some apes look like humans, or vice versa, and skull findings can be in a somewhat similar shape. Therefore, evolutionists may say, "See? Humans evolved from apes." But where really is the proof? In a laboratory if someone sees a cell develop, that's proof that a cell is developing. But where is the proof that apes eventually evolved to become humans? Fossils? That's not proof. But you and others may think so. So be happy and enjoy whatever life there is if possible.

How do you explain the evidence that gnostic and Subduction Zone have presented? The palaeontological evidence is that there is a succession of fossils, from the Precambrian to the Pleistocene. Animals and plants that are alive today do not appear as fossils in ancient rocks: there are no horses, whales or primates in Mesozoic rocks; there are no birds in pre-Jurassic rocks; there are no ichthyosaurs or plesiosaurs in Palaeozoic rocks. Modern fish are different from the fossil fish in Mesozoic rocks, and these again are different from Palaeozoic fish. Why is this the case? All living things must have a chain of ancestors stretching indefinitely far back into the past. Do you imagine that the first whale, or the first primate, or the first Eohippus or the first Iguanodon came into existence by spontaneous generation? If not, then you must accept that they were descended from ancestors that belonged to different kinds.

The anatomical and genetic evidence shows the same thing. Our anatomy and our genes are more similar to those of primates than to those of other mammals. Why should this be if all species were separately created? It is not as if we live the same sort of life as other primates; very few humans live in forests, and we are not good at climbing trees. Why are bats anatomically similar to mammals rather than to birds, and whales genetically similar to artiodactyls (hippos, cattle, pigs, deer, antelope, etc) rather than to fish? The anatomy of bats is clearly modified from that of ground-living mammals, and that of whales is modified from that of land-living animals. Why should a creator modify a ground-living mammal for flight and a land-living mammal for life in the sea rather than creating flying animals and marine animals from the start? Darwin showed that the bizarre flowers of orchids are derived by modification of the components of more normal flowers, rather than by creation ex nihilo. How can this have come about, except by a gradual process of accumulated change over many generations?

If you do not accept evolution, you must have some idea of where the observed diversity of living things came from. Would you like to tell us what this idea is, and how it explains the evidence better than the theory of evolution? I look forward to reading your reply.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, let's go over the basics, good idea. But before we do, and I hope you will, fish are not yet evolving, are they?

Of course they are evolving. Why wouldn't they be?


This tells us that you have zero understanding of evolution at all. Evolution is simply the change of gene alleles in a population over time. Since mutations are always occurring in any population then gene alleles will change with time.