Online Reference: Selected Sites Denying the Theory of Evolution

[Valjean]

No, it's not at all. Your acceptance of the theory is really without basis except by postulation. As in that which you and others beleve is self-evident. What is self-evident is that Lucy had bones. Humans and whales have bones. There is nothing to show at all that they evolved.

You keep posting this, over and over, in multiple threads. This repetition doesn't support your assertion.

There is abundant evidence for evolution, from multiple disciplines. More accumulates daily.
You continue to ignore the evidence provided, and believe in something fantastical and entirely unevidenced, outside an ancient compilation of fables written by people who knew little about anything but goat herding -- and precious little about that, either. You are emotionally invested in your faith to the point of blindness.
Is there anything that would convince you that natural processes were more likely than magic?

You do believe in many other things, more poorly evidenced: local news reporting, tracking by spoor, crime evidence, court rulings, &c. You, at least, accept seemingly impossible, counter-intuitive claims like quantum mechanics -- you are posting from a computer, over the internet, after all. And yet, childishly simple, obvious mechanisms like natural selection seems to threaten you.

This is not to say that whales do not procreate, and humans do not procreate. But humans stay humans, and whales stay whales.

There you go again.
What evidence do you have of this? Noöne ever witnessed it directly? Of course it hasn't been directly observed. How many generations a whale lineage have been directly observed and pedigreed? Noöne ever observed Latin turn into French, either.
What we have are fossils, comparative anatomy and DNA. Enough to reveal a clear pattern of gradual change, by understandable, observable processes. No magic needed.

 

[Valjean]

i am not so sure about that...there a quite a number of researchers who are world experts in that field who have actually shown that in fact the complete opposite is true. Of course, these experts are immediately thrown out of the party, however, that is a result of the usual humanistic response to such things...if it doesn't fit the model hide it!

I have also found evidence of a consensus on the idea of Ape ancestor is in chaos and not reflective of your view at all. It appears that in fact we are seeing more evidence that points to the conclusions that most evolutionary human origin stories in this area are not compatible with the known fossils we have!

“When you look at the narrative for hominin origins, it’s just a big mess — there’s no consensus whatsoever,” said Sergio Almécija, a senior research scientist in the American Museum of Natural History’s Division of Anthropology

“Top-down” studies sometimes ignore the reality that living apes (humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and hylobatids) are just the survivors of a much larger, and now mostly extinct, group.

the “bottom-up”approach are prone to giving individual fossil apes an important evolutionary role that fits a preexisting narrative.

“In The Descent of Man in 1871, Darwin speculated that humans originated in Africa from an ancestor different from any living species. However, he remained cautious given the scarcity of fossils at the time,” Almécija said. “One hundred fifty years later, possible hominins — approaching the time of the human-chimpanzee divergence — have been found in eastern and central Africa, and some claim even in Europe. In addition, more than 50 fossil ape genera are now documented across Africa and Eurasia. However, many of these fossils show mosaic combinations of features that do not match expectations for ancient representatives of the modern ape and human lineages. As a consequence, there is no scientific consensus on the evolutionary role played by these fossil apes.”

“Living ape species are specialized species, relicts of a much larger group of now extinct apes. When we consider all evidence — that is, both living and fossil apes and hominins — it is clear that a human evolutionary story based on the few ape species currently alive is missing much of the bigger picture,” said study co-author Ashley Hammond, an assistant curator in the Museum’s Division of Anthropology.​

These are not claims that humans and other apes didn't evolve from a common ancestor. It's saying that the human lineage is crowded with dozens of different species; a tree of many branches and twigs. It doesn't deny evolution, it just says a single specific line of descent is not yet clear.​

 

[Valjean]

That's ridiculous to say that if you go way back on your family tree, you'll find -- what? a gorilla? a monkey?? Oh no, wait. An "Unknown Commion Ancestor" to you and monkeys, bonobos, gorillas, etc.

Why is it ridiculous?
Follow the straight line downward from the human. There are no other extant species directly along the line, just points of divergence leading to other species. We're not descended from any existing species

 

[Valjean]

If I believed the doctrine (theory) of evolution, I'd believe it was telling me the truth. However, while some skeletons may resemble each other as far as posture goes, and then scientists decide they "evolved," like from Lucy to homo sapiens, I'd go along with it. But I no longer do. It simply cannot be proved, or taken for granted that these things happened by "natural selection." Anyway, have a good day, it was nice talking with you.

We've explained to you many times that "proof" is an impossible requirement, yet you keep repeating this in post after post.

Neither the germ theory of disease or the round Earth theory has been 'prooved', yet you believe them. Why is the evidence supporting them convincing, when the even more abundant and consilient evidence for evolution isn't?

 

[YoursTrue]

We've explained to you many times that "proof" is an impossible requirement, yet you keep repeating this in post after post.

Neither the germ theory of disease or the round Earth theory has been 'prooved', yet you believe them. Why is the evidence supporting them convincing, when the even more abundant and consilient evidence for evolution isn't?

OK, there's no proof. Therefore -- it's an assumption based on what some consider as "evidence" proving, no, not proving, ok, not proving the theory. OK, not proving but considered as supporting the theory. So again -- no proof that the theory is correct. As an example, evidence in trials can be used to convince a jury that the accused is guilty. But the evidence is not always correctly assessed. Now I realize you believe the evidence points to--no, not "points to," but "shows" that the theory is correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, there's no proof. Therefore -- it's an assumption based on what some consider as "evidence" proving, no, not proving, ok, not proving the theory. OK, not proving but considered as supporting the theory. So again -- no proof that the theory is correct. As an example, evidence in trials can be used to convince a jury that the accused is guilty. But the evidence is not always correctly assessed. Now I realize you believe the evidence points to--no, not "points to," but "shows" that the theory is correct.

The closest that one can come to "proof" in the real world is by using evidence. Evidence is very well defined in the sciences. It is rather easy to confirm if someone has evidence for a concept or not. The evidence for evolution is so strong that well over 90% of all scientists accept evolution as valid. When it comes to the experts in the field the percentage is over 99%. It appears that the lunatic fringe is all that is left that denies reality.

 

[YoursTrue]

We've explained to you many times that "proof" is an impossible requirement, yet you keep repeating this in post after post.

Neither the germ theory of disease or the round Earth theory has been 'prooved', yet you believe them. Why is the evidence supporting them convincing, when the even more abundant and consilient evidence for evolution isn't?

Yes, because you may not go for the word proof, but there is no proof of evolution. You may equate that with the germ theory, or round earth (whatever that is...). The fact you are trying to convince me that I have no basis for doubting, or disbelieving the validity of the theory of evolution is telling. You offer your opinion but no 'facts.' Anyway, I'm going to leave it there for now.

 

[YoursTrue]

The closest that one can come to "proof" in the real world is by using evidence. Evidence is very well defined in the sciences. It is rather easy to confirm if someone has evidence for a concept or not. The evidence for evolution is so strong that well over 90% of all scientists accept evolution as valid. When it comes to the experts in the field the percentage is over 99%. It appears that the lunatic fringe is all that is left that denies reality.

Yes, well, ok. Good night.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, because you may not go for the word proof, but there is no proof of evolution. You may equate that with the germ theory, or round earth (whatever that is...). The fact you are trying to convince me that I have no basis for doubting, or disbelieving the validity of the theory of evolution is telling. You offer your opinion but no 'facts.' Anyway, I'm going to leave it there for now.

The evidence for evolution is greater than that for the germ theory. It may be greater than that for a roughly spherical Earth.

You really should try to understand the concept of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, well, ok. Good night.

Instead of repeatedly demonstrating that you do not know what you are talking about why not try to learn the basics? Once you do that you can learn for yourself.

 

[YoursTrue]

Instead of repeatedly demonstrating that you do not know what you are talking about why not try to learn the basics? Once you do that you can learn for yourself.

You have provided nothing but your opinion reflecting the opinions of others you agree with. No "proof" of your beliefs/opinions, and...no evidence you can explain. With verification as to 'evidencing' (not proving, of course) the theory of evolution. Sooo, have a nice evening. It's been nice/interesting talking with you. Bye for now.

 

[YoursTrue]

The evidence for evolution is greater than that for the germ theory. It may be greater than that for a roughly spherical Earth.

You really should try to understand the concept of evidence.

You and others similar to you make statements without backup, only your opnion. Well, have a good evening once again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have provided nothing but your opinion reflecting the opinions of others you agree with. No "proof" of your beliefs/opinions, and...no evidence you can explain. With verification as to 'evidencing' (not proving, of course) the theory of evolution. Sooo, have a nice evening. It's been nice/interesting talking with you. Bye for now.

No, I have provided evidence in the past. You refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence.

But here we, you need to remember this:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,

Now you need to know that a scientific theory or hypothesis is a testable model.

If someone provides you with what they claim is "evidence" then you have to ask yourself honestly if the concept is testable. If you do not understand how you can ask. If the answer is yes, and never assume no without an explanation,, then you can ask yourself whether the observation supports the concept or not.

That is why the fossil record is evidence for evolution, even if you do not like it. It does not matter whether or not you think that it "proves evolution". That is your mistake. It matters whether or not it supports the concept.

Do you understand this? Do you have any questions about it?

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.

And once scientific evidence is presented the burden of proof to refute it falls upon you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You and others similar to you make statements without backup, only your opnion. Well, have a good evening once again.

Please, do not tell falsehoods. You are the one that improperly rejects the support that is given.

Go back and reread my prior post. Tell me if you have any questions about it at all.

Once you understand then I will gladly start to supply evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please, do not tell falsehoods. You are the one that improperly rejects the support that is given.

Go back and reread my prior post. Tell me if you have any questions about it at all.

Once you understand then I will gladly start to supply evidence.

It's not a falsehood. I believe I asked you if early fossils can be tested for DNA. Forgive me if I missed your answer. So it should be an easy answer for starters. It's yes or no. If I didn't ask you I hope you can answer anyway.

 

[Valjean]

Few can be tested. Too old and degraded.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not a falsehood. I believe I asked you if early fossils can be tested for DNA. Forgive me if I missed your answer. So it should be an easy answer for starters. It's yes or no. If I didn't ask you I hope you can answer anyway.

I do believe that I answered, the answer is no.

Modern DNA, that of Chimps and humans, tells us that we have a common ancestor.

Did you read about the concept of evidence?

 

[YoursTrue]

I do believe that I answered, the answer is no.

Modern DNA, that of Chimps and humans, tells us that we have a common ancestor.

Did you read about the concept of evidence?

In your posts, or in general? So fossils can be bones of animals without DNA, is that right? Perhaps I misunderstood you. I'll get into the evidence you claim is such that chimps and humans come from a common ancestor.

 

[YoursTrue]

Few can be tested. Too old and degraded.

OK, let's say that's true. How does it work then? I mean how old would the bone fragments have to be order to demonstrate DNA?

 

[Valjean]

OK, let's say that's true. How does it work then? I mean how old would the bone fragments have to be order to demonstrate DNA?

Teeth are a better repository, actually, and the rate of degradation would depend on environmental factors, temperature, humidity, environment, &. You can google yourself for DNA degradation factors.