Evolution is a Big Lie

[outhouse]

Wait, I don't understand your response. What are you saying Arp doesn't teach? You said he's a Quack, why did you say he's a Quack exactly? Why don't you want to write to the Max Planck institute and tell them they hired a Quack? I really want to hear their response, what's stopping you?

By the way, the Big Bang theory is disputed by many individual academics, I see you want to totally avoid discussing the Unified Non-expanding theory which I provided multiple sources for.

quit derailing a Evolution thread with the big bang

You loose here, trying to spread pseudoscience

You will loose in that thread as well.

But here isnt the place for it. You have been shown the error of your ways.

 

[Iti oj]

I wonder if you've actually read your own links, the Seal one they admit is speculative at best. I'm assuming you're one of those who thinks its completely confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt. And there's no possible chance it was a completely different animal rather than a transition, none at all. If you notice, I actually quote from my articles. I dare you to quote something from your articles that proves something conclusive, such as on the Lemurs.

speculation smeculation at least evolution has evidence to present. of course there is speculation. It happened so long in the past we can never been 100% but even if the animal line died out, it still demonstrates the concept of a 'transition' yes a lot of them die out very few live on in new creatures. If it was a successful or failed transition does not matter. There are more dead things then alive. you have not made a point you have not even refuted anything. your hiding behind shadows of doubt.

 

[Shermana]

What is there to refute that you've presented? Are you unable to quote something from your links that proves something conclusive? It seems the word "Evidence" is highly misunderstood by Atheists and Theists alike. It doesn't demonstrate transition whatsoever, it demonstrates that there could POSSIBLY be transition, but there's more evidence AGAINST transition, like the Bat wing which no one has figured out yet despite their attempts to say they're "figuring it out". Some things are just impossible.

Understanding of bat wing evolution takes flight

Likewise with the idea that monkey-things lost their tails and developed arched feet.

Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion

That's why there is Speculation, because there's not enough real-solid evidence to make a conclusion, despite what many rabid Macro-evolutionists may want to dishonestly say.

 

[outhouse]

What is there to refute that you've presented? Are you unable to quote something from your links that proves something conclusive? It seems the word "Evidence" is highly misunderstood by Atheists and Theists alike. It doesn't demonstrate transition whatsoever, it demonstrates that there could POSSIBLY be transition, but there's more evidence AGAINST transition, like the Bat wing which no one has figured out yet despite their attempts to say they're "figuring it out". Some things are just impossible.

Understanding of bat wing evolution takes flight

Likewise with the idea that monkey-things lost their tails and developed arched feet.

Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion

That's why there is Speculation, because there's not enough real-solid evidence to make a conclusion, despite what many rabid Macro-evolutionists may want to dishonestly say.

None of what you posted discredits evolution at all, A typical newhope reply


whats HILLARIOUS is that you post information backing EVOLUTION

 

[Iti oj]

What is there to refute that you've presented? Are you unable to quote something from your links that proves something conclusive? It seems the word "Evidence" is highly misunderstood by Atheists and Theists alike. It doesn't demonstrate transition whatsoever, it demonstrates that there could POSSIBLY be transition, but there's more evidence AGAINST transition, like the Bat wing which no one has figured out yet despite their attempts to say they're "figuring it out". Some things are just impossible.

Understanding of bat wing evolution takes flight

Likewise with the idea that monkey-things lost their tails and developed arched feet.

Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion

That's why there is Speculation, because there's not enough real-solid evidence to make a conclusion, despite what many rabid Macro-evolutionists may want to dishonestly say.

First off hypocrit much? Tell me to quote my article then don't quote yours? cool beans. Here is the kicker everything living thing is a 'transition' species, but using creationist terms, all of those are evidence of a transition species. That is not speculation. The only thing that is speculation is if it continued to evolve to a 'modern' creature or if the line was an evolutionary dead end. In simple talk, all these fossils show a creature that came from creature a heading towards creature b. Many many many potentials evolved, most failed and died. The transition may be a failed attempt or a successful, it does not matter both are necessary and a apart of evolution. What don't you get . its simple. you need to understand evolution adaptation and random mutations generate more failures then success, that's why its 'survival of the fittest. showing that any particulatre fossil line died off and did not evolve does not disprove macro evolution because that is a necessary part of it. if we did not find evidence of failed transitions is when i would get worried.

 

[Shermana]

. In simple talk, all these fossils show a creature that came from creature a heading towards creature b.

Not necessarily. If you say its a confirmed fact that they do represent a transition, then that's exactly what I'm talking about.

Now here's an example from my articles: First on the arched feet, which no one has any clue how it really happened other than making guesses and notes based on the physiology. It's far from as cut and dry as the Macro-evolutionists insist on. And yes, Random mutations mostly result in failures because....mutations always result in a deleterious effect in general sustainability, even if one advantage is gained.

As more fossil evidence accumulated, some researchers entertained the possibility of locomotor diversity in contemporary early hominins (e.g. Napier, 1964), but this view was far from prevalent. Furthermore, many of the more recent studies, informed by the growing collection of hominin postcranial fossils, have focused on the degree to which particular skeletal elements imply one type of locomotion or another.The central point is that contemporary fossil taxa may well have been mosaic in their adaptations, but, critically, may have been mosaic in different ways to each other. This has recently been shown to be the case for the feet of A. afarensis and the new and similarly aged A. africanus specimen ‘Little Foot’ (Harcourt-Smith, 2002). Further analyses of other skeletal elements are needed to reinforce this interpretation. If correct, this would imply that there was more locomotor diversity in the fossil record than has been suggested, and raises questions over whether there was a single origin for bipedalism or not. At the very least, if bipedalism appeared only once in the hominin radiation and is therefore monophyletic, such evidence would suggest that there were multiple evolutionary pathways responding to that selection pressure. It is currently difficult to determine primitive from derived morphologies in the hominins because of the problem of homoplasy and resulting phylogenetic uncertainty. Although perhaps controversial, it is important that when considering such a unique adaptation as bipedalism, we do not allow that uniqueness to imply that there was ever only one successful mode of bipedalism in our hominin ancestry. In light of the richness of recent findings in the hominin fossil record, it is important to ask the question of whether the evolution of bipedalism was a more complex affair than has previously been suggested.

And the Bat-wing, which no one has a real clue about.

Summary and perspective

While it is still unclear whether modern bats arose rapidly or gradually from their quadrupedal ancestor, it does seem certain that their evolution required many molecular changes to dramatically alter morphology from a limb to a wing. One might argue that a small and transient increase in the length of limb bones is not striking, but this is taken out of the greater context of evolution over millions of years. While on its own this specific modification to the Prx1 enhancer would not have had a dramatic effect in a more mouse-like quadrupedal ancestor, it likely contributed significantly to morphological divergence in combination with other molecular changes. Future work to identify more of these molecular changes combined with filling gaps in the fossil record will likely unravel the complicated cause and effect of bat evolution and indicate how these molecular changes may have given rise to morphological adaptation that drove bat wing evolution.

 

[Iti oj]

Not necessarily. If you say its a confirmed fact that they do represent a transition, then that's exactly what I'm talking about.

Now here's an example from my articles: First on the arched feet, which no one has any clue how it really happened other than making guesses and notes based on the physiology. It's far from as cut and dry as the Macro-evolutionists insist on. And yes, Random mutations mostly result in failures because....mutations always result in a deleterious effect in general sustainability, even if one advantage is gained.

And the Bat-wing, which no one has a real clue about.

Thanks for ignoring the bulk of my post. no reply? these quotes don't back up your point at all. They actually demonstrate mine. their are lots of transitional species most of them failed. As for the bat not yet knowing does not mean its impossible, it just mean we have not yet found an answer. I invite you to reply to all the points i made in my last post. You know the post where i refuted your whole argument and pointed out that it does not matter if they evolved or died out, how evolution predicts this.

 

[Shermana]

How do they demonstrate your point and not demonstrate mine? They show that there's huge disagreement on the basics, and if anything if shows that they're all drawing straws. If you can't say how it happened, then you can't say that it just happened and we need to figure it out. The same can be said for Creationist science. "We don't know how Creation was made, we just know it happened".

As for the "Transitional" species dying out, I don't know what part of that required a reply to. It's speculative of what is transitional to what exists today and what's not, so that just backs my own point as well.

 

[Iti oj]

How do they demonstrate your point and not demonstrate mine? They show that there's huge disagreement on the basics, and if anything if shows that they're all drawing straws. If you can't say how it happened, then you can't say that it just happened and we need to figure it out. The same can be said for Creationist science. "We don't know how Creation was made, we just know it happened".

As for the "Transitional" species dying out, I don't know what part of that required a reply to. It's speculative of what is transitional to what exists today and what's not, so that just backs my own point as well.

No they do not with the bat, so what we haven't figured it all out yet? So? Not knowing does not mean anything. and for the bipedal example evolution predicts this. Things evolve separately and repetitively. One thing becomes many the many die of leaving a few these few repeat the process. Evolution is not linear its more like branch.
evolution expects and accounts for this. Its survival of the fittest for a reason because only the best survive. Evolution requires failure. You have yet to refute anything nor have you even made a coherent point. why are you arguing against something you obviously do not understand? All you do is shout creationist rhetoric.

 

[Shermana]

What is it you think I don't understand? I don't understand how what I quoted backs YOUR point, but what about the supposed process itself do you think I don't understand? It seems that a lot of Atheists shout "You don't understand" when you disagree with them or point out flaws and holes in their claims. Can you quote a single Creationist Rhetoric I've made so far? What point have YOU made so far that's "coherent"? Neither have they figured out how arched feet form. I'm saying they never WILL figure out how the Bat wing came to be in their models. The one who doesn't understand evolution is the one saying that it just happened. There's nothing cut and dry and concrete, that's not Creationist rhetoric to point this out. Even Steven J Gould lamented on the lack of true "transitionals" discovered which could lead to today's "discoveries". I even brought up Australopithecus and Habilis, you ducked out on that too.

Once again, I agree with MICROevolution. Do you deny the fact that nearly all known mutations cause a deleterious effect to the overall survivability of the cell in question?

 

[Iti oj]

What is it you think I don't understand? It seems that a lot of Atheists shout "You don't understand" when you disagree with them or point out flaws and holes in their claims. Can you quote a single Creationist Rhetoric I've made so far? What point have YOU made so far that's "coherent"? Neither have they figured out how arched feet form. I'm saying they never WILL figure out how the Bat wing came to be in their models. The one who doesn't understand evolution is the one saying that it just happened. There's nothing cut and dry and concrete, that's not Creationist rhetoric to point this out.

Once again, I agree with MICROevolution. Do you deny the fact that nearly all known mutations cause a deleterious effect to the overall survivability of the cell in question?

Macro evolution does not exist its just the accumulated effects of micro evolution, that's why i say you do not understand evolution. Of course most mutations are bad that's to be expected. Whats your point? evolution takes place over a geological time scale so plenty of time for the good and bad mutations to sort out and for the good ones to accumulate. Forget the bat, so what? the fossil record is going to be broken, think of how old they are, that does not disprove evolution.

You need to re read my post. your last 3 post ignored every point i made. and yes everything you say is the same shiv creatonist trolls shout, except when i talk to them i need to Google stuff, you make no points at all i have yet to even break a sweat. re read my posts, you missed something.

 

[Shermana]

Macro evolution does not exist its just the accumulated effects of micro evolution, that's why i say you do not understand evolution. Of course most mutations are bad that's to be expected. Whats your point? evolution takes place over a geological time scale so plenty of time for the good and bad mutations to sort out and for the good ones to accumulate. Forget the bat, so what? the fossil record is going to be broken, think of how old they are, that does not disprove evolution.

You need to re read my post. your last 3 post ignored every point i made. and yes everything you say is the same shiv creatonist trolls shout, except when i talk to them i need to Google stuff, you make no points at all i have yet to even break a sweat. re read my posts, you missed something.

I don't see what points you made that I ignored, you said that we see "Dead ends" of transitions, and I said that there's no way of knowing that they were transitioned, you're just assuming they did...with no evidence.

Forget the bat, exactly. And forget the arched feet and the loss of tails as well too I suppose. You ignored what I said about how mutations cause deleterious effects to overall survivability. I'm saying that Macro-evolution CANNOT occur from a series of micro-evolutionary changes. There's no evidence of it. There's plenty of evidence that mutations cause the structure to die off and become weakened nearly, it not every single time. Do you even know what the "Species problem" is? I'm amazed how few Macro-evolutionists have even heard of the "Species problem"? You cannot just ignore what I say and then say "You made no points". Likewise, I fail to see what part about the "dead end transitions" has any evidence of being a transitionary state of something else.

You said I'm spouting Creationist rhetoric, I asked you to quote something I said that's exclusive to Creationists and not just basic science, and you apparently can't. Just like you apparently cannot quote from your own articles when asked.

 

[Iti oj]

I don't see what points you made that I ignored, you said that we see "Dead ends" of transitions, and I said that there's no way of knowing that they were transitioned, you're just assuming they did...with no evidence.

Forget the bat, exactly. And forget the arched feet and the loss of tails as well too I suppose. You ignored what I said about how mutations cause deleterious effects to overall survivability. I'm saying that Macro-evolution CANNOT occur from a series of micro-evolutionary changes. Do you even know what the "Species problem" is?

You said I'm spouting Creationist rhetoric, I asked you to quote something I said that's exclusive to Creationists and not just basic science, and you apparently can't. Just like you apparently cannot quote from your own articles when asked.

I did not forget them i already explained them evolution predicts and allows for multiple evolution of the same thing. i already explained this 3 times. here is me this is you :run:stop ignoring my points. evolution accounts for the "species problem" Fine I'll go mulit quote you

 

[Father Heathen]

lol....childish drivel

It's like you all go to the same anti-theist school and regurgitate that same crap over and over again.

Chapter One: Go to talkorigins and learn it!

Chapter Two: Put your game face on and be mean to theist, but tell them their delusional and are simply upset because you are questioning their archaic beliefs.

Chapter Three: Deny that you are a troll!

How many times must it be said? The theory of evolution and the concept of god are not mutually exclusive. Biblical literalism isn't the only form of theism.

 

[Shermana]

I did not forget them i already explained them evolution predicts and allows for multiple evolution of the same thing. i already explained this 3 times. here is me this is you :run:stop ignoring my points. evolution accounts for the "species problem" Fine I'll go mulit quote you

Again, I don't see what point of yours I'm ignoring. Did you even read what I said? You have no evidence that these "dead-end transitions" are transitions to begin with. None. You have run away from many things I said, such as the issue that nearly all mutations cause the cell to weaken and die, the idea that it would form completely new, healthy species is ludicrous in this understanding. Even Stephen Jay Gould lamented on the lack of evidence for transitions. You failed to answer my question of how the quotes on the bat and arch promote YOUR view and how they don't promote mine. You seem to have changed your mind when you said "Forget the Bat". Go multiquote me please and back up your claims. And perhaps you may want to actually quote from your own article as asked. I also brought up Habilis and Australopithecus and you totally ran away from those issues too.

Also, it seems you don't understand what the "Species problem" actually is judging by your sentence "evolution accounts for the species problem", how does that make any sense whatsoever? Why don't you define it for the class.

 

[Walkntune]

I don't see what points you made that I ignored, you said that we see "Dead ends" of transitions, and I said that there's no way of knowing that they were transitioned, you're just assuming they did...with no evidence.

Forget the bat, exactly. And forget the arched feet and the loss of tails as well too I suppose. You ignored what I said about how mutations cause deleterious effects to overall survivability. I'm saying that Macro-evolution CANNOT occur from a series of micro-evolutionary changes. There's no evidence of it. There's plenty of evidence that mutations cause the structure to die off and become weakened nearly, it not every single time. Do you even know what the "Species problem" is? I'm amazed how few Macro-evolutionists have even heard of the "Species problem"? You cannot just ignore what I say and then say "You made no points". Likewise, I fail to see what part about the "dead end transitions" has any evidence of being a transitionary state of something else.

You said I'm spouting Creationist rhetoric, I asked you to quote something I said that's exclusive to Creationists and not just basic science, and you apparently can't. Just like you apparently cannot quote from your own articles when asked.

I am ignorant on the subject of evolution but it seems that common sense would say that everything starts out with all of the information in tact and as time progresses things loose information and change over time eventually loosing enough to even become extinct.
I wouldn't think that mutations would ever add information but would actually contribute to the loss of information.
Like I said I am over my head but this just seems like common sense.
I guess this creates a problem of how did the information get in tact but this would be a problem many want to avoid.

 

[Shermana]

Exactly, mutations would not allow for more complex species.

 

[Iti oj]

Again, I don't see what point of yours I'm ignoring. Did you even read what I said? You have no evidence that these "dead-end transitions" are transitions to begin with. None. You have run away from many things I said, such as the issue that nearly all mutations cause the cell to weaken and die, the idea that it would form completely new, healthy species is ludicrous in this understanding. Even Stephen Jay Gould lamented on the lack of evidence for transitions. You failed to answer my question of how the quotes on the bat and arch promote YOUR view and how they don't promote mine. You seem to have changed your mind when you said "Forget the Bat". Go multiquote me please and back up your claims. And perhaps you may want to actually quote from your own article as asked. I also brought up Habilis and Australopithecus and you totally ran away from those issues too.

Also, it seems you don't understand what the "Species problem" actually is judging by your sentence "evolution accounts for the species problem", how does that make any sense whatsoever? Why don't you define it for the class.

The species problem is to know how and when to account something as a new species.....in evolution, since it takes so long and only works with small changes their is no problem. Everything comes from its own species, everything is mostly the same as the thing before it. their is only a species problem when looking at it in retro spect its not like one day you have a bear that gave birth to a new species by the time its a new species it has descended from a long line of things similar to it,. Its a gradual procces and something albiet look and act different can bread together making them the same species but add a few thousand years and see what evolution does... bet you they wont be able to bread boom transition much? I already replied to your point about most mutations being bad thanks for reading my post let me repeat myself, "Of course most mutations are bad that's to be expected. Whats your point? evolution takes place over a geological time scale so plenty of time for the good and bad mutations to sort out and for the good ones to accumulate," sooo yeah what was your point again? your right i ignored you h.habilis point mostly because i don't feel like a he said she said argument and why waste time looking up one point when the rest of your posts are nonsense. you gave me to much to refute sorry i missed refuting one point. over all even if your right so what? does that disprove evolution or any of the other transitions i mentioned? no not at all. its a pointless point. who cares? Now gould... the fossil record has gaps do to how hard it is to form fossils we are lucky to have as many as we do. the fossil record is not evolution just something evolution uses to provide examples. their is more then enough evidence in biology and gentics for evolution to make sense even if we had no fossil record ( i believe dawkins said that in the god delusion.) you seem to misunderstand everything about evolution from its timescale to survival of the fittest, to the idea of a family tree with lots of dead ends. and im not going to waste time pointing out how your like a creationist troll its a derail im ignoring

 

[Iti oj]

and the dead ends are evidence in and off them selves

 

[Iti oj]

and the "dead ends" are evidence in and of them selves. whered they come from whered they go?