More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

[YoursTrue]

You really should not quote out of context articles that you do not understand.


By your bad standards the Bible "proves" that God does not exist. Think about it.

And I offered to go over the basics of science with you. Until you understand what is and what is not evidence, and you clearly lack that understanding, you will not be able to comprehend any refutation. Hiding from reality is your only defense.

Here's something you might want to think about. Even if I DIDN'T believe in the Bible as the "gold standard," I'd have to now wonder rationally as the biologist and wife of Carl Sagan did, “Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change—led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.”
And that's what I did here especially-- looked for evidence proving the theory. I found none, especially as presented and explained by the supporters of the theory here and otherwise. Including the so-called evidence they use as if that proves evolution. It doesn't matter if I was an honor student with scholarship and once believed in the theory. What matters is the evidence. And theory. And lack of the evidence supporting the theory. So I leave it up to the minds of those who believe in evolution as fact or those who do not to add the proof or lack of it, up.

 

[YoursTrue]

You really should not quote out of context articles that you do not understand.


By your bad standards the Bible "proves" that God does not exist. Think about it.

And I offered to go over the basics of science with you. Until you understand what is and what is not evidence, and you clearly lack that understanding, you will not be able to comprehend any refutation. Hiding from reality is your only defense.

I understood the article. I suggest you read more of those highly educated persons who no longer believe in the supposition of evolution. Science does not prove evolution. Anyway, have a nice night, it's been interesting talking with you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's something you might want to think about. Even if I DIDN'T believe in the Bible as the "gold standard," I'd have to now wonder rationally as the biologist and wife of Carl Sagan did, “Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change—led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.”
And that's what I did here especially-- looked for evidence proving the theory. I found none, especially as presented and explained by the supporters of the theory here and otherwise. Including the so-called evidence they use as if that proves evolution. It doesn't matter if I was an honor student with scholarship and once believed in the theory. What matters is the evidence. And theory. And lack of the evidence supporting the theory. So I leave it up to the minds of those who believe in evolution as fact or those who do not to add the proof or lack of it, up.

The problem is that you do not even know what is and what is not evidence. You have repeatedly demonstrated that. Why not take some time to learn?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understood the article. I suggest you read more of those highly educated persons who no longer believe in the supposition of evolution. Science does not prove evolution. Anyway, have a nice night, it's been interesting talking with you.

If you did then you are openly lying. I do not think that is the case. I do not think that you are willing to openly lie to defend your beliefs.

And if you use the legal standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" then yes, science has "proved" evolution. You simply refuse to learn the basics. I call it the "Ostrich defense". You hide your head from learning so that you can make false statements, and therefore still breaking the Ninth Commandment, without openly lying.

It does not fool anyone.

 

[Bear Wild]

I don't need to, because research on your part will show you if you care to do a good study of the subject. So I suggest you look up the problems with stratified layers of rock and time dating them, including and particularly, the fossils that are unearthed or within the strata. Meantime, regardless of fossils and/or dating and stratified layers of soil-rock, there is simply and unequivocally no proof of evolution from -- fossils.

So your answer is to avoid your explanation of fossils because you know your concept of creation is flawed. I do not need to look up on a subject I am familiar and you dare not even admit they exist and will refuse to explain their existence. Fossils with their and their position the stratified geologic history is clear evidence for evolution and you have no explanation meaning you have no argument to support you claim.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you did then you are openly lying. I do not think that is the case. I do not think that you are willing to openly lie to defend your beliefs.

And if you use the legal standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" then yes, science has "proved" evolution. You simply refuse to learn the basics. I call it the "Ostrich defense". You hide your head from learning so that you can make false statements, and therefore still breaking the Ninth Commandment, without openly lying.

It does not fool anyone.

I find it truly amazing that you cannot see and admit to what is before your eyes in the way of lack of evidence. There IS no evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt. OK, well, you can go on insulting me. What this board has convinced me of is the shadowy and cloudy murky reasoning considered scientific "evidence" by some. (There is none.) I don't need to explain any further than has already been covered, the explanations of scientists and people like you prove itself by the way, that there IS NO EVIDENCE beyond a shadow of a doubt. Anyway, have a nice day.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't need to, because research on your part will show you if you care to do a good study of the subject. So I suggest you look up the problems with stratified layers of rock and time dating them, including and particularly, the fossils that are unearthed or within the strata. Meantime, regardless of fossils and/or dating and stratified layers of soil-rock, there is simply and unequivocally no proof of evolution from -- fossils.

This is a total cop out answer.

You say there are holes in the theory of evolution. When asked to explain what they are, you tell people to go search them out for themselves, which is, I'm sorry to say, a laughable response.
You say there are holes, then show the holes. Otherwise, why should anyone take you seriously?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I find it truly amazing that you cannot see and admit to what is before your eyes in the way of lack of evidence. There IS no evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt. OK, well, you can go on insulting me. What this board has convinced me of is the shadowy and cloudy murky reasoning considered scientific "evidence" by some. (There is none.) I don't need to explain any further than has already been covered, the explanations of scientists and people like you prove itself by the way, that there IS NO EVIDENCE beyond a shadow of a doubt. Anyway, have a nice day.

Wow, more falsehoods while running away.

You seriously do not understand the concept of evidence. Why are you so afraid to learn? Is it because deep down you know that you are wrong?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I find it truly amazing that you cannot see and admit to what is before your eyes in the way of lack of evidence. There IS no evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt. OK, well, you can go on insulting me. What this board has convinced me of is the shadowy and cloudy murky reasoning considered scientific "evidence" by some. (There is none.) I don't need to explain any further than has already been covered, the explanations of scientists and people like you prove itself by the way, that there IS NO EVIDENCE beyond a shadow of a doubt. Anyway, have a nice day.

Can you explain why all evidence from almost every field of science all points to the same conclusion, that being the fact of evolution. (I've asked you this before, to no response.)
If you were correct about the complete lack of evidence, this should not be the case. And yet it is.
How do you reconcile this discrepancy between factual reality and your belief system?

 

[YoursTrue]

Can you explain why all evidence from almost every field of science all points to the same conclusion, that being the fact of evolution...

Can you explain that all evidence from almost every field of science all points to the fact of evolution? If so, please explain in your own words that "all evidence ... points to the fact of evolution". Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

Wow, more falsehoods while running away.

You seriously do not understand the concept of evidence. Why are you so afraid to learn? Is it because deep down you know that you are wrong?

I pose the same question to you as I did to Skeptic Thinker. Can you explain how all evidence from almost every field of science all points to the fact of evolution? Thanks.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Can you explain that all evidence from almost every field of science all points to the fact of evolution? If so, please explain in your own words that "all evidence ... points to the fact of evolution". Thanks.

Yes, As I've pointed out to you before, everything discovered in the field of biology, chemistry, botany, paleobotany, genetics, geology, zoology, marine biology, comparative anatomy, biogeography, biochemistry, microbiology, paleontology, bioecology, and more, all supports and points to the fact that evolution is responsible for the biodiversity of life on Earth. Nothing discovered in any field of science to date (that's in at least the last 150+ years), has shown evolution to be false. Nothing, or it wouldn't remain the most well-evidenced scientific theory in existence. And yet it is.

How do you explain this, if evolution is so full of holes? And what holes, exactly?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, As I've pointed out to you before, everything discovered in the field of biology, chemistry, botany, paleobotany, genetics, geology, zoology, marine biology, comparative anatomy, biogeography, biochemistry, microbiology, paleontology, bioecology, and more, all supports and points to the fact that evolution is responsible for the biodiversity of life on Earth. Nothing discovered in any field of science to date (that's in at least the last 150+ years), has shown evolution to be false. Nothing, or it wouldn't remain the most well-evidenced scientific theory in existence. And yet it is.

How do you explain this, if evolution is so full of holes? And what holes, exactly?

The holes are evident in what is considered evidence of the theory. I've said it many times. Fossils show that there once was something that was alive. What evidence are you citing beyond the opinions of the majority of scientists? Remember I said their opinions. Please explain the evidence of evolution according to Darwin's theory in your own words. What evidence do you put forth beyond their opinions about the theory? Show the evidence, then explain how the evidence fits in with Darwin's theory. I'm telling you there is none. That means...I don't have to explain beyond that. And, for the record, you are not compelled to explain the so-called evidence, but neither am I. You say you have. I'm asking you to explain in your own words why you believe there is evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt proving Darwin's theory correct.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The holes are evident in what is considered evidence of the theory. I've said it many times.

Yes, you've said many times that there are holes in evolution. You have yet to provide one.

If they are so evident, then it should be extremely easy to point them out.

Fossils show that there once was something that was alive.

Yep, they do. They also tell us other things like what the animal ate, where it lived, how the animal died, the animal's size and shape, the animal's diet, the animal's method of locomotion, the environmental conditions in which the animal lived or was buried, the animal's behavior, and so on. They actually can tell us quite a lot.

I'm not sure how you consider this a "hole" in evolution.

What evidence are you citing beyond the opinions of the majority of scientists?

All evidence obtained from each field of science. Genetics and comparative genomics, of course, are examples of evidence that supports evolution. You accept the science of genetics when it comes to showing that you and your family members are related, but reject it when it comes to showing how all life is related, despite the fact that it's the same science involved in both. That is your own cognitive dissonance that you will have to deal with here.
Geologists tell us the age of the earth, which supports the theory of evolution.
Paleontologists went out looking for a water-to-land transitional form, and found tiktaalik roseae in the exact geographical area and in the exact rock strata they expected to find it in. How do you think they managed to figure that out if evolution is wrong and so full of "holes?"
Evolution is the backbone of biology.

Remember I said their opinions.

Yes I know. You seem to be under the misapprehension that science is decided by opinions, when in actuality it is decided by the evidence.

Please explain the evidence of evolution according to Darwin's theory in your own words. What evidence do you put forth beyond their opinions about the theory? Show the evidence, then explain how the evidence fits in with Darwin's theory. I'm telling you there is none. That means...I don't have to explain beyond that. And, for the record, you are not compelled to explain the so-called evidence, but neither am I. You say you have. I'm asking you to explain in your own words why you believe there is evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt proving Darwin's theory correct.

See above. Plus all the other evidence that has been endlessly provided to you (and explained by those much smarter than I), on these threads.
You have to open your eyes first though.

Now you say there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for evolution? Well, I'm sorry but that is just a flat-out denial of reality and I think it stems from the fact that you do not understand evolution or the theory of evolution in the slightest and you're stuck having to navigate through your own cognitive dissonance here.

 

[sayak83]

Here's something you might want to think about. Even if I DIDN'T believe in the Bible as the "gold standard," I'd have to now wonder rationally as the biologist and wife of Carl Sagan did, “Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change—led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.”
And that's what I did here especially-- looked for evidence proving the theory. I found none, especially as presented and explained by the supporters of the theory here and otherwise. Including the so-called evidence they use as if that proves evolution. It doesn't matter if I was an honor student with scholarship and once believed in the theory. What matters is the evidence. And theory. And lack of the evidence supporting the theory. So I leave it up to the minds of those who believe in evolution as fact or those who do not to add the proof or lack of it, up.

Lyn margulus was one of the greatest evolutionary biologist who contributed much to the theory of evolution.
Lynn Margulis - Wikipedia
Her work actually shows how complex cells formed through natural endosymbiosis process. How does it support creationism or refutes evolution I have no ideam

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you explain that all evidence from almost every field of science all points to the fact of evolution? If so, please explain in your own words that "all evidence ... points to the fact of evolution". Thanks.

The problem is that you do not understand the concept of evidence and refuse to even discuss it. What good would it do to give you any evidence when you will simply deny it?

By the way, if you understood the concept of evidence you would have to openly lie to deny the evidence. You appear to know this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The holes are evident in what is considered evidence of the theory. I've said it many times. Fossils show that there once was something that was alive. What evidence are you citing beyond the opinions of the majority of scientists? Remember I said their opinions. Please explain the evidence of evolution according to Darwin's theory in your own words. What evidence do you put forth beyond their opinions about the theory? Show the evidence, then explain how the evidence fits in with Darwin's theory. I'm telling you there is none. That means...I don't have to explain beyond that. And, for the record, you are not compelled to explain the so-called evidence, but neither am I. You say you have. I'm asking you to explain in your own words why you believe there is evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt proving Darwin's theory correct.

That is not a hole. It is merely your inability to understand the concept of evidence.

By the way, refusing to discuss the concept of evidence when claiming that there is no evidence is dishonest. It is not quite lying, but it is awfully close to it.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is a total cop out answer.

You say there are holes in the theory of evolution. When asked to explain what they are, you tell people to go search them out for themselves, which is, I'm sorry to say, a laughable response.
You say there are holes, then show the holes. Otherwise, why should anyone take you seriously?

Meantime, you offer nothing other than your opinion. And naturally, that of others. NOT proof by science. But the opinions of others as if you understand why they agree with the Darwinian model. If you offer more than that, please put in your own words beyond opinion that makes you believe in evolution of the Darwinian kind. Thank you so much!

 

[YoursTrue]

That is not a hole. It is merely your inability to understand the concept of evidence.

By the way, refusing to discuss the concept of evidence when claiming that there is no evidence is dishonest. It is not quite lying, but it is awfully close to it.

OK, so explain why you believe in evolution of the Darwinian model. You can say you have told me, but perhaps you can put it in your own words, briefly, that is, of course.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is not a hole. It is merely your inability to understand the concept of evidence.

By the way, refusing to discuss the concept of evidence when claiming that there is no evidence is dishonest. It is not quite lying, but it is awfully close to it.

It is not lying because there IS no evidence. None what-so-ever. If there is, please put it in a few of your own words the "evidence" of Darwinian concept of evolution, thank you. By a few words, a brief explanation of the "scientific" kind of evidence proving evolution will do. Perhaps a paragraph or two in your own words. Thanks.