Proof of evolution -at last-

[cladking]

Gradual change in species has been observed.

So... which scientist bit the bullet and lived a million years just so he could watch whales slowly change? I think Vonnegut mightta written about him in "Galapagos". But it's fiction too.

I am amazed at your ability to be fractally wrong so often.

And I've barely begun. Being wrong is the human condition but no skeptic and no believer can understand this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So... which scientist bit the bullet and lived a million years just so he could watch whales slowly change? I think Vonnegut mightta written about him in "Galapagos". But it's fiction too.



And I've barely begun. Being wrong is the human condition but no skeptic and no believer can understand this.

LOL! Why do you think that whale evolution needs an eyewitness? By the way, you can't claim to be a skeptic either. Skeptics follow the evidence. You refuse to even understand the concept.

If you wish we can go over the concept of evidence.

 

[Astrophile]

I've addressed that. Skin color, eye color, hair texture, etc. are genetics. When I bring up the idea that gorillas stay gorillas, humans stay humans, I am told that there is not enough time to tell. Beyond that, there is simply no evidence demonstrating biologically that life developed by the claimed history of the method of the process of evolution. One might say, "Yes, there is!" but there really is not.

As I have pointed out many times, there are no fossil humans or fossil gorillas in Miocene rocks, although Miocene rocks contain many fossils of other species of apes (e.g. Proconsul, Kenyapithecus, Dryopithecus, Oreopithcus, Graecopithecus, and Samburupithecus). Obviously modern humans and modern gorillas must have had Miocene ancestors, and the obvious inference is that these ancestors were some of the extinct species of apes whose fossil remains are found in Miocene rocks. In other words, these Miocene apes did not remain Proconsul, Kenyapithecus, Dryopithecus, etc; instead, they evolved into new species, some of them the modern apes and humans. What other explanation can you offer for these observed facts?

You say that gorillas stay gorillas and humans stay humans. Did Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus sediba stay the same species, and if so, why are they not still living in Africa? Present the evidence for your answer.

 

[YoursTrue]

As I have pointed out many times, there are no fossil humans or fossil gorillas in Miocene rocks, although Miocene rocks contain many fossils of other species of apes (e.g. Proconsul, Kenyapithecus, Dryopithecus, Oreopithcus, Graecopithecus, and Samburupithecus). Obviously modern humans and modern gorillas must have had Miocene ancestors, and the obvious inference is that these ancestors were some of the extinct species of apes whose fossil remains are found in Miocene rocks. In other words, these Miocene apes did not remain Proconsul, Kenyapithecus, Dryopithecus, etc; instead, they evolved into new species, some of them the modern apes and humans. What other explanation can you offer for these observed facts?

You say that gorillas stay gorillas and humans stay humans. Did Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus sediba stay the same species, and if so, why are they not still living in Africa? Present the evidence for your answer.

First of all, the only evidence some may conclude that the theory of evolution (natural selection) is true is primarily that of fossil finds and assumptions that humans developed hands and feet and backs different from tree climbers by "natural selection" biologically. It no longer makes sense to me. And the evidence may lead many to believe it is true based on lookalikes as well as comparative DNA analysis, but that does not prove it either. I understand why people accept or believe it. I once did. I no longer do. Here's why: the theory presumes changes came about by socalled natural selection, mutations that lasted as far as inheritance goes leading to consequently different forms that over time cannot interbreed. I can see why people accept that. But there is again,no proof. And because I have come to believe that God created the basic lifeforms as outlined in Genesis, I now no longer accept as true the basic tenets of the theory of evolution. Naturally this leads to other questions.

 

[YoursTrue]

And how many times do you have to be told that the ToE does not in any way negate there being a Divine creation?

But what were the sources? Heck, using the internet one can find "proof" that the Earth is flat and sea monsters still exist and roam the oceans.

IOW, let me recommend that when doing the scriptures use the scriptures, but when doing the science use actual scientific sources and not questionable "religious" sources disguising themselves as science. I've read many of the latter over the years, and I can't understand how some authors of such trash can literally lie about their supposed evidence and consider themselves to be believers in the Truth.

In closing, the ToE does not negate God in any way but helps show us how all of creation evolved over time.

In what way do you claim the theory of evolution does not negate God as creator? Please explain, if you will, that position. I know you think Jesus is a person that is not accurately portrayed in the Bible. So I won't ask you now any questions about what he said, since if I remember correctly, you said he was kind of like a man of the times, using limited knowledge of life, evidently vulnerable to the teaching of the Bible as myth and possibly folklore..

 

[YoursTrue]

You seem to be talking about biochemistry. I'm talking about mechanisms, like natural selection, mutation, gene flow, sexual selection, genetic drift, &c.
Are you conversant with these?

Aren't biochemical reactions involved with the evolution of an organism as you know it?

 

[ppp]

In what way do you claim the theory of evolution does not negate God as creator? Please explain, if you will, that position. I know you think Jesus is a person that is not accurately portrayed in the Bible. So I won't ask you now any questions about what he said, since if I remember correctly, you said he was kind of like a man of the times, using limited knowledge of life, evidently vulnerable to the teaching of the Bible as myth and possibly folklore..

Evolution says nothing about how life first arose. It only says how things evolved from that first life, and how long it took from that point till now.

 

[shunyadragon]

So, gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest is proven.



or maybe not.



It's proven!

It always seems like Evolution is established fact until anyone dares to question what an established fact is. I'll give you a clue; established fact is not really "tentative". I'll give you another clue, even observation can be performed incorrectly. Despite the title of this thread no experiment has ever shown a gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest. All observed change is sudden. Anything imagined from the fossil record is hypothesis or not science at all.

No maybe nor maybe not involved with science. Your intentional ignorance in science is appalling.

 

[shunyadragon]

Aren't biochemical reactions involved with the evolution of an organism as you know it?

Yes, So what????

 

[cladking]

No maybe nor maybe not involved with science. Your intentional ignorance in science is appalling.

Science believers are continually implying Evolution is proven and is simple fact.

Then they chide non-believers for asking for proof (or evidence). Page after page after page of arguments against Evolution and belief in Evolution is met with semantics and dogma. Believers think all they need to do is gainsay any argument because they have Science on their side. They attack and belittle the arguer instead of addressing the argument.

Why do you think he implied Evolution is proven?

Saying something is "proven" is not an argument in science because... ...well... ...NOTHING CAN BE PROVEN BY SCIENCE.


Your posts are generally quite good but you missed the point of mine.

 

[cladking]

By the way, you can't claim to be a skeptic either.

I doubt that!

 

[cladking]

No maybe nor maybe not involved with science. Your intentional ignorance in science is appalling.

"Tentative" is just a word and science does not engage in semantics and neither do I.

 

[shunyadragon]

"Tentative" is just a word and science does not engage in semantics and neither do I.

All words communicate best if used properly. Tentative does not apply in this case. You not only have problems with semantics, but also the misuse of layman's and logic terms such as 'poof' that do not apply to science. Your argument so far is incoherent and intentional ignorance of science in terms of any context of science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Science believers are continually implying Evolution is proven and is simple fact.

NO! terribly layman's use of terminology.

Then they chide non-believers for asking for proof (or evidence). Page after page after page of arguments against Evolution and belief in Evolution is met with semantics and dogma. Believers think all they need to do is gainsay any argument because they have Science on their side. They attack and belittle the arguer instead of addressing the argument.

. because of the intentional ignorance and the lack of knowledge of basic high school and Freshman level science and scientific terminology

Why do you think he implied Evolution is proven?

[/quote] Saying something is "proven" is not an argument in science because... ...well... ...NOTHING CAN BE PROVEN BY SCIENCE. [/quote]

Proof, prove, and proven are layman's and logic words that do not apply to science.

Your posts are generally quite good but you missed the point of mine.

Make your points using proper scientific terms, concepts and scientific references. then maybe they will become coherent and relevant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I doubt that!

Let me clarify, you can't claim to be a skeptic without making others laugh. A skeptic follows the evidence. You either do not know what evidence is or do the opposite. Instead of following the evidence you deny the evidence.

Would you like to learn what is and what is not evidence so that you do not keep making he same mistakes?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

First of all, the only evidence some may conclude that the theory of evolution (natural selection) is true is primarily that of fossil finds

Nope.
This is not the case. And you know it is not the case as plenty of people, including myself, already explained this error to you ad nauseum.

Why do you insist on being wrong?

It no longer makes sense to me.

It never makes sense to people who insist on a strawman version of the theory.

Here's why: the theory presumes changes came about by socalled natural selection, mutations that lasted as far as inheritance goes leading to consequently different forms that over time cannot interbreed. I can see why people accept that. But there is again,no proof

You mean, aside from having literally observed speciation take place by that exact process?

And because I have come to believe that God created the basic lifeforms as outlined in Genesis

There you go. The ONLY reason you don't believe in evolution: you have religious beliefs that are incompatible.

It's also the reason why you insist on strawman version of the theory. It's easier to dismiss.

Why you think this is a good idea, is a mystery.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In what way do you claim the theory of evolution does not negate God as creator?

It's almost like you are not aware that the majority of christians in the world have no problem with evolution theory at all.

Maybe you should ask some of them that question?

There's even entire books about it. Like "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller, a christian evolutionary biologist. Maybe you should give it a read?

Finding Darwin's God (findingdarwinsgod.com)

Obviously I don't believe in god. But I find it very bizarre that you seem so oblivious to these things.

 

[cladking]

You not only have problems with semantics, but also the misuse of layman's and logic terms such as 'poof' that do not apply to science.

No. This is a semantical argument concerning the meaning of "semantical". You had been engaging in a semantical argument concerning the meaning of "tentative" but you have degraded your argument even further and it no longer bears any relationship to anything I had said.

Your argument so far is incoherent and intentional ignorance of science in terms of any context of science.

Right...

I'm used to being gainsaid, ignored, and told I only speak in word salad. Meanwhile my accusers continue to ignore every argument from every poster except to gainsay them or claim they make no sense.

Truly remarkable!

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. This is a semantical argument concerning the meaning of "semantical". You had been engaging in a semantical argument concerning the meaning of "tentative" but you have degraded your argument even further and it no longer bears any relationship to anything I had said.



Right...

I'm used to being gainsaid, ignored, and told I only speak in word salad. Meanwhile my accusers continue to ignore every argument from every poster except to gainsay them or claim they make no sense.

Truly remarkable!

When you cannot present any evidence for your beliefs gainsaying alone refutes you. Why do you expect others to put more work into their responses than you do? We know that you are wrong. You know that you are wrong. At this point you just appear to be playing games.

 

[cladking]

NO! terribly layman's use of terminology.

No!!! Believers in science continue to imply everything is known and evolution has been proven. Then when I say no it has not been proven, they inform me for the 1000th time that nothing in science is proven!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It goes on and on and on.

. because of the intentional ignorance and the lack of knowledge of basic high school and Freshman level science and scientific terminology

Remarkable!!! Believers just keep repeating the same nonsense. But if I point out they wouldn't know what science was if it bites them on the nose then I'm the bad guy.

Maybe believers should go back and read the 4th grade text that says "science doesn't prove anything" because they've read and not understood later texts well enough to create a cogent argument.

Gainsaying evidence and logic IS NO ARGUMENT. Anyone can do that.