Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[james bond]

This one has been addressed a thousand times over. Right after Darwin says that in his book, he goes on for over three pages explaining how he thinks the eye evolved.

You can read it here:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F401&pageseq=173

But it doesn't really matter at this point what Darwin may have thought, given that we've learned so much more about evolution over the last 150 years than he ever could have dreamed. We have a pretty good idea of the steps involved in the evolution of the eye and we know that they are viable because they all exist in all kinds of organisms living today.

Sorry, totally inadequate like Darwin as a scientist.

Darwin felt the seemingly insurmountable problem of the evolution of what he called an organ of ‘extreme perfection and complication’ could be solved. From The Origin of Species:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivance for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

So he tosses out hypotheses to point out how it could happen.

Complex things are stubborn facts.

However, the evidence shows that advanced vision appears almost at the very beginning of the fossil record. The oldest eye in the fossil record, a trilobite, is a very complex faceted compound eye that ‘dates’ back to the Cambrian period of about 540 million years ago.

The fossil evidence shows that from the beginning of the fossil record eyes are very complex, highly developed structures. We also have ‘living fossils’, animals that have remained virtually unchanged since very early in history. University of Salford biologist, Laurence R. Croft, wrote that the ‘precise origin of the vertebrate eye is still a mystery. The fascinating thing about the evolution of the eye is its apparent sudden appearance. Specifically, the fossils show that vision originated ‘in the early Cambrian’, which Darwinists put at ‘some 530 million years ago’.

Anyone have fossils of giraffes to show their long necks evolved?

 

[james bond]

Okay so, things that can interbreed are the same kind and things that can't interbreed can also be the same kind?



Nah, I'd much rather listen to a scientist explain how dinosaurs evolved into birds. It's much more interesting.


Can you rephrase the question so that it makes sense?


A person can certainly have a job in the field of science that deals with evolution. There's biology, just for starters.

Evidence shows birds did not evolve from dinosaurs.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

Protein is one of the necessary building blocks of humans. You haven't shown how it "evolved," so we can eat food and grow.

What job in biology?

 

[james bond]

Was Darwin right about anything?

Fantastically Wrong Thing Darwin Really Screwed Up
http://www.wired.com/2014/12/fantastically-wrong-thing-evolution-darwin-really-screwed/

Appendix
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090820175901.htm

Charles Darwin wrong: Modern scientists debunk Darwin's 'Tree of Life' diagram
http://www.examiner.com/article/cha...ientists-debunk-darwin-s-tree-of-life-diagram

 

[james bond]

This only works in a spiritual sense not the material sense. In the material sense you use the same systems everyone else has available but attribute success/results to God while others do not. Many believers in God also accept evolution so your point is moot by the former and later.

Evolutionist isn't a job rather people become biologists specializing in a particular discipline.

Yes, I accept people become biologists, but question whether evolution is a field of science. It sounds more like religion and philosophy.

It depends on what people accept as "evolution." They may accept natural selection.

 

[Ouroboros]

The missing link of giraffe, a transitional fossil: http://www.livescience.com/52903-transitional-giraffe-fossils.html

Fossil eggs link birds to dinosaurs: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120712092443.htm

An unprecedented collection of fossils have led to stronger evidence for the link between bird and dinosaurs: http://www.nhm.org/site/research-co...tute/dinosaurs/birds-late-evolution-dinosaurs

Fossil of eye "forerunner": https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080101193317.htm

Fossil evidence for early evolution of eye: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-008-0087-y

And on and on...

But no! Can't be true, because Gish says, "blah blah blah blah" so there...

 

[james bond]

Or biological anthropology, paleontology, also, having knowledge in evolution is becoming more and more important for medical research and horticulture.

Are they called evolution biologists, evolution anthropologists, etc?

Are they scientists that end up proving Darwin and ToE was wrong?

Genetic tests on bacteria, plants and animals increasingly reveal that different species crossbreed and form hybrids more than originally thought, meaning that instead of genes simply being passed down individual branches of the tree of life, they are also transferred between species on different evolutionary paths. The result is a messier and more tangled “web of life.”

The findings mean that to link species by Darwin's evolutionary branches is an oversimplification.

"The tree of life is being politely buried," said Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."

It is interesting to note, too, that Darwin, evolution’s best-known advocate, when advancing his theory of evolution, had his own doubts about mankind’s origin and indicated an awareness of his theory’s limitations.

 

[james bond]

The missing link of giraffe, a transitional fossil: http://www.livescience.com/52903-transitional-giraffe-fossils.html

Fossil eggs link birds to dinosaurs: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120712092443.htm

An unprecedented collection of fossils have led to stronger evidence for the link between bird and dinosaurs: http://www.nhm.org/site/research-co...tute/dinosaurs/birds-late-evolution-dinosaurs

Fossil of eye "forerunner": https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080101193317.htm

Fossil evidence for early evolution of eye: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-008-0087-y

And on and on...

But no! Can't be true, because Gish says, "blah blah blah blah" so there...

Finally, some evidence. Thank you for the giraffe.

As for the dinosaur, there is conflicting evidence as I posted earlier.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

As for the eye, isn't the trilobite and and the Cambrian period earlier than yours? How could evo fo the eye take place if it didn't have time? It's evidence for creation.

Did Darwin say this was true? Darwin was mostly wrong.

 

[Ouroboros]

As for the dinosaur, there is conflicting evidence as I posted earlier.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

It's specifically about the theropod dinosaurs. The theropods are a group of saurischian dinosaurs. Perhaps the "conflict" here is about what kind of dinosaurs the bird evolved from, and not if they evolved from dinosaurs.

As for the eye, isn't the trilobite and and the Cambrian period earlier than yours? How could evo fo the eye take place if it didn't have time? It's evidence for creation.

Eyes have evolved some 40-50 times through history. Today we have some 20 different types of eyes in nature. The simplest forms of eyes are a single little cell recognizing changes of light and color.

The Cambrian period was something like 80 million years.

Did Darwin say this was true? Darwin was mostly wrong.

It's a mistake to think that Theory of Evolution is the same as Darwinism. It's not about what Darwin said, but what we have discovered the past 150+ years after. 70-80% of the fossils we have today were discovered in the past 30 years or so. In the 70's we had a 1/4 million fossils. Today, we have more than a million.

Genetics wasn't known to Darwin. The genetic evidence like ERVs, transposons, markers, and sharing mutations of synonymous codons, all point to lines of ancestry. There's a reason why they can today trace you ancestry on Ancestry.com by you sending in a blood sample.

 

[Ouroboros]

Are they called evolution biologists, evolution anthropologists, etc?

Not sure what you're getting at. Evolution is a science that is more like math. It spans over many different disciplines.

Are they scientists that end up proving Darwin and ToE was wrong?

? Sorry. You lost me. Perhaps I missed something earlier regarding this part of the discussion.

Genetic tests on bacteria, plants and animals increasingly reveal that different species crossbreed and form hybrids more than originally thought, meaning that instead of genes simply being passed down individual branches of the tree of life, they are also transferred between species on different evolutionary paths. The result is a messier and more tangled “web of life.”

Absolutely. Totally agree on that. It's not just a single thread or branch like Darwin thought. Modern view on evolution is that it's a network. It's branching and merging of branches in many different ways.

The findings mean that to link species by Darwin's evolutionary branches is an oversimplification.

Correct. The evolutionary branching is an oversimplification. It's a lot more complex than that.

"The tree of life is being politely buried," said Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."

Well, I don't think the whole fundamental view of biology has to change for it. It's just a matter of changing the perspective a bit and dive into a deeper understanding of how evolution works.

The cool thing though is... evolution is still true. It's just not "Darwinian tree of life" evolution but rather "Modern Theory of Evolution." Which is different.

It is interesting to note, too, that Darwin, evolution’s best-known advocate, when advancing his theory of evolution, had his own doubts about mankind’s origin and indicated an awareness of his theory’s limitations.

Of course he had doubts and problems. He didn't know about 99.9% of what we know today. Theory of Evolution has evolved a couple of lightyears away from what he knew. Same as Newton's laws of gravity has changed with Einstein and quantum physics. Gravity isn't at all anything near to what Newton thought it was. What he saw was just the illusion of something else. And now with dark matter and dark energy, Newton's theories are pushed even further away from reality. Newton's equations work mostly for slower speed, but not at speed of light. So... should we say that the theory of gravity must be wrong because we consider Newton to be the "best-known advocate for gravity"?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sorry, totally inadequate like Darwin as a scientist.

Darwin felt the seemingly insurmountable problem of the evolution of what he called an organ of ‘extreme perfection and complication’ could be solved. From The Origin of Species:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivance for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

I have already exposed this lie using the full quote from Origin of Species (emphasis mine):

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

[SOURCE: https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A Good Atheist Secularist Skeptical Book Collection/Charles Darwin - The Origin of Species - 6th Edition.pdf]

For someone who hates being called a liar, you sure do lie a lot.

So he tosses out hypotheses to point out how it could happen.

Complex things are stubborn facts.

However, the evidence shows that advanced vision appears almost at the very beginning of the fossil record. The oldest eye in the fossil record, a trilobite, is a very complex faceted compound eye that ‘dates’ back to the Cambrian period of about 540 million years ago.

The fossil evidence shows that from the beginning of the fossil record eyes are very complex, highly developed structures. We also have ‘living fossils’, animals that have remained virtually unchanged since very early in history. University of Salford biologist, Laurence R. Croft, wrote that the ‘precise origin of the vertebrate eye is still a mystery. The fascinating thing about the evolution of the eye is its apparent sudden appearance. Specifically, the fossils show that vision originated ‘in the early Cambrian’, which Darwinists put at ‘some 530 million years ago’.

You do realize that trilobites didn't just appear out of thin air, right? Life pre-dates trilobites in the pre-Cambrian period by almost 4 billion years, and we have a comprehensive understanding of how eyes such as the trilobites evolved:

http://www.trilobites.info/eyes.htm

Pointing out "complexity" is meanigless.

Anyone have fossils of giraffes to show their long necks evolved?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151007033229.htm

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, I accept people become biologists, but question whether evolution is a field of science

Name one.

 

[james bond]

Not sure what you're getting at. Evolution is a science that is more like math. It spans over many different disciplines.

First and foremost, evolution is not a science. It's a religion that thinks it is science. What have we been talking about all these posts lol?

 

[McBell]

First and foremost, evolution is not a science. It's a religion that thinks it is science. What have we been talking about all these posts lol?

Bold faced lie

 

[Guy Threepwood]

First and foremost, evolution is not a science. It's a religion that thinks it is science. What have we been talking about all these posts lol?

cmon 007, I think comparing evolution to a religion is a little unfair..

Religion acknowledges it's own beliefs, faith as such, and teaches the importance of personal, direct exploration, discovery, validation. Evolution would have to do the same to rise to the same level would it not?

I would say evolution is more of a superstition, unquestioning belief and acceptance of something simply because it is taught as such.

Was Darwin right about anything?

Again a little harsh I think, credit where it is due: Darwin recognized many potential fatal flaws in the theory, long before they were established scientifically,

 

[McBell]

cmon 007, I think comparing evolution to a religion is a little unfair..

Religion acknowledges it's own beliefs, faith as such, and teaches the importance of personal, direct exploration, discovery, validation. Evolution would have to do the same to rise to the same level would it not?

I would say evolution is more of a superstition, unquestioning belief and acceptance of something simply because it is taught as such.

Still killing your credibility with this dead horse abuse?

 

[First Baseman]

James Bond has got it going on in this thread!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

First and foremost, evolution is not a science. It's a religion that thinks it is science. What have we been talking about all these posts lol?

Why are you incapable of refuting my arguments?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

James Bond has got it going on in this thread!

I've repeatedly exposed him as a liar and someone who knows next to nothing about evolution and gets all of his incredibly inaccurate information from creationist websites. I doubt there is a single argument he has made that he hasn't read (if not completely copied and pasted) from creationist websites, and that he has made no effort whatsoever to actually discover the truth of.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sorry, totally inadequate like Darwin as a scientist.


Darwin felt the seemingly insurmountable problem of the evolution of what he called an organ of ‘extreme perfection and complication’ could be solved. From The Origin of Species:


"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivance for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

No. Go to the link I provided and keep reading the part after your quote ends. There are 3 pages worth of explanations (and that's completely ignoring everything we've learned about evolution over the last 150+ years). Or go grab a copy of the book and read it.


This is why quote mining is unproductive.

So he tosses out hypotheses to point out how it could happen.

It’s not a hypothesis you’ve quoted, rather it’s one line from a book.

Complex things are stubborn facts.


However, the evidence shows that advanced vision appears almost at the very beginning of the fossil record. The oldest eye in the fossil record, a trilobite, is a very complex faceted compound eye that ‘dates’ back to the Cambrian period of about 540 million years ago.

The evidence does not show that. Like I said, all of the proposed steps involved in the evolution of the eye exist in all manner of organisms living today, so we know they are viable.

The fossil evidence shows that from the beginning of the fossil record eyes are very complex, highly developed structures. We also have ‘living fossils’, animals that have remained virtually unchanged since very early in history. University of Salford biologist, Laurence R. Croft, wrote that the ‘precise origin of the vertebrate eye is still a mystery. The fascinating thing about the evolution of the eye is its apparent sudden appearance. Specifically, the fossils show that vision originated ‘in the early Cambrian’, which Darwinists put at ‘some 530 million years ago’.


Anyone have fossils of giraffes to show their long necks evolved?

http://www.nyas.org/publications/detail.aspx?cid=93b487b2-153a-4630-9fb2-5679a061fff7


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080101193317.htm

http://www.zmescience.com/medicine/genetic/evolution-of-vision-from-700-million-years/

 

[SkepticThinker]

Evidence shows birds did not evolve from dinosaurs.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

Protein is one of the necessary building blocks of humans. You haven't shown how it "evolved," so we can eat food and grow.

What job in biology?

I asked you a question and now you've galloped off onto 2 other claims.

You don't really care about the answers, do you?