The Scientific Method Applied To Evolution...
Options
Comments
-
I know it, studied it and took classes and passed the tests.
This is very difficult for me to believe. It is almost impossible for me to believe someone could receive passing grades in any science class, much less biology and be so scientifically illiterate
Proof that you have an under developed understanding of the natural worldReading all that I wrote above is proof,
Evolution doesn't explain how life started, you're confusing this with abiogenesis. Evolution explains how life diversified overtime.I can be honest enough to say I don't know what happened to create life.
Ok, I'm starting to doubt you ever took a science class. Do you understand the process of how a theory is formed? It's not random conjecture. All positive claims must be based on testable, objective and falsifiable evidence. We understand more about evolution than we do gravity and atoms. Ok here's a list of transitional fossil found overtime. A transitional fossil is a fossil that is in the intermediate stage between two ancestral groups and exhibits traits of both i.e a reptile- mammal, or reptile-bird, below are just SOME of the transitional fossils from reptiles to mammals. Darwin said if evolution is true, we should see things like this. You can go to a museum and see any of these on display.so you get a chance to bring ur proof and have last word. Just don't trust in some scientists just because they showed somebody something and it sounds good tho.
Genus:
Archaeothyris
Haptodus
Dimetrodon
Biarmosuchus
Cynognathus
Thrinaxodon
Morganucodon
Yanoconodon
-
Gravity is a theory too, so is The theory of atoms or Atomic theory...28 problems that aren't my ideas, the 29th is, but point that I agree with are problems with your proof of the THEORY,THEORY of evolution
Please read a science book. A scientific theory has a totally different meaning than the colloquial usage employed by the average person. A theory must make accurate predictions and is used to describe a wide array of observable natural phenomenon. All theories are comprised of FACTS and have been through the harsh criticism of peer before even being considered a feasible hypothesis. Evolution has stood the harshes tests by the smartest people to ever live for over 100 years and is still the only theory of biodiversity on earth.(as it pertains to speciation/ meaning A man comes from a fish, or a chimpanzee, or the Big Bang Theory.)
When has any scientists said man came from a fish. This would actually disprove evolution. No scientists has ever said man came from chimps either. This is a common misconception. This lack of basic understanding makes me doubt you ever taken a course in evolution like you've claimed.
What does any of this have to do with evolution?22. The universe was created by a collapsing star and rotates. And like super-cooled liquids, the rotation causes random swirls which are our galaxies. This falsehood and apparent chaos explains the harmony and order in everything that we behold.
23. The speed of light
24. Black holes
25. Antimatterdoesn't matter that it happened a billion years ago. We should see it happening by now.
We do. There's peer reviewed articles on this. The reason none of this satisfies is because you have a flawed basic understand of evolution. We would never see a snake give birth to a bear. Again this would disprove evolution.
@luke1733 -
Yo, I'm tired of writing so much stuff on here. Believe what you choose. At the least, you can at least see why some scientists do not sign onto to the theory of speciation. It is not accepted by the entire community. As to me taking biology and going back and forth with attending the University of Iowa and graduating in under 4 years that's whatever. My responses need to be shorter so, I made my points previously and there's plenty more from more reputable sources with higher degrees in the field that you can read on. Even if you don't believe the opposition at least you'll see what's been said by people who also aren't believing in creationist theory but just say speciation isn't correct either. Hell, at least watch the video alisowack put up for this thread. Oh, and if it makes u feel any better I read what all you wrote. I figured I owed it since I write a lot too. One last thing "and so it burns," they have a gel for that you might wanna get it taken care of now.
-
If you think evolution is ? wait till you read about what happened before it.
-
wow... that interviewer in the video you posted is ? and obviously doesn't understand evolution
edit: The poster deleted the video I was commenting on. -
By "some scientists" you failed to mention that over 90% of scientists accept the theory that's higher than the theory of relativity. There's a good reason why There's no competing theory to evolutionary biology just like there's no competing theory to Einstein's theory of relativity or Newtonian mechanics. These theories aren't perfect no realm of human knowledge is infallible but these theories are demonstrably true.Yo, I'm tired of writing so much stuff on here. Believe what you choose. At the least, you can at least see why some scientists do not sign onto to the theory of speciation. It is not accepted by the entire community. As to me taking biology and going back and forth with attending the University of Iowa and graduating in under 4 years that's whatever. My responses need to be shorter so, I made my points previously and there's plenty more from more reputable sources with higher degrees in the field that you can read on. Even if you don't believe the opposition at least you'll see what's been said by people who also aren't believing in creationist theory but just say speciation isn't correct either. Hell, at least watch the video alisowack put up for this thread. Oh, and if it makes u feel any better I read what all you wrote. I figured I owed it since I write a lot too. One last thing "and so it burns," they have a gel for that you might wanna get it taken care of now.
Oh it's And so it burns is a Jedi mind tricks song lol -
If you think evolution is ? wait till you read about what happened before it.
Do you believe evolution is "? " -
And_So_It_Burns wrote: »
No I think it's a plausible credible and logical explanation. Not that it's the absolute full truth. -
And_So_It_Burns wrote: »
No I think it's a plausible credible and logical explanation. Not that it's the absolute full truth.
I agree nothing man knows should be considered "the absolute full truth" we don't know everything about anything. But we definitely can show what's factual and make accurate predictions. I don't think any aspect of human knowledge will ever be complete. -
Good thread......
Typical modus operandi by anti-creationists......
Whenever anyone provides evidence against the theory of evolution, their intelligence is immediately called into question.......
@luke1733 you provided excellent evidence that went ignored behind infantile questions of your intelligence....
I believe that you did attend university and you are courageous for attempting to enlighten the dumb ? in this forum......
@alissowack.....
Good drop....
The video illustrates the dangers of blind faith and shows that even "trained" scientists can have no idea about their discipline.......
Still waiting on someone to provide some type of evidence that establishes that "these theories are demonstrably true"....
For glory's sake, WAR!!!!
-
Ok I'll bite. Really sad people are defending pseudoscience and creationism myths in 2015. We have a better understanding of evolution than we do quantum mechanic theory, gravitational theory and even atomic theory. It's obvious creationists only have a problem with science when it conflicts with their 2000 plus year old desert books.Good thread......
Typical modus operandi by anti-creationists......
Whenever anyone provides evidence against the theory of evolution, their intelligence is immediately called into question.......
@luke1733 you provided excellent evidence that went ignored behind infantile questions of your intelligence....
I replied to the small portion of his post that could be considered a some what coherent argument against evolution. A good portion of his argument attempted to disprove abiogenesis and the big bang which are completely separate from evolution. I listed transitional fossils, reptiles transitioning into mammals, reptiles into birds ect.
I believe that you did attend university and you are courageous for attempting to enlighten the dumb ? in this forum......
Yes, believing in a well established branch of biology makes one a "dumb ? " Evolutionary biology is a well understood natural phenomenon. In fact, biology only makes sense in light of evolution. We base our vaccines and anti-biotics off it. It's been countlessly proven over the last 150 years through, the fossil record, DNA, morphology, taxonomy and the biological distribution of animals.Good drop....
The video illustrates the dangers of blind faith and shows that even "trained" scientists can have no idea about their discipline.......
Science doesn't require faith because it's demonstrably true. Or else it wouldn't be science. Religious myths on the other hand like, Noah's ark and creationism have to be believed based on faith alone because all physical evidence contradicts it.Still waiting on someone to provide some type of evidence that establishes that "these theories are demonstrably true"....
Hmmm well we have observed evolution in labs and have peer reviewed papers on this observation. Not to mention the mapping of the human genome undoubtedly shows we evolved. We have transitional fossils as well which shows the intermediate stages between to species and some case classes. There's also vestigial organs which are only explainable through evolution. Then there's the geological evidence.
http://www.darwinwasright.org/observations_speciation.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/speciation-observed-again
http://www.transitionalfossils.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8OMpfBQR4E
-
And_So_It_Burns wrote: »Ok I'll bite. Really sad people are defending pseudoscience in 2015.
Indeed….And_So_It_Burns wrote: »I replied to the small portion of his post that could be considered a some what coherent argument against evolution. A good portion of his argument attempted to disprove abiogenesis and the big bang which are completely separate from evolution. I listed transitional fossils, reptiles transitioning into mammals, reptiles into birds ect.
You posted a list of “transitional fossils” that redirects to Wikipedia, which is not a problem(I appreciate the free encyclopedia). Its just that you left out the most important part…..
“As noted already by Darwin, the fossil record is incomplete.[1] Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral species from which later groups evolved, but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor.[2]
Fossil record = incompleteAnd_So_It_Burns wrote: »In fact, biology only makes sense in light of evolution. We base our vaccines and anti-biotics off it. It's been countlessly proven over the last 150 years through, the fossil record, DNA, morphology, taxonomy and the biological distribution of animals.
DNA = evidence for intelligent design
http://youtu.be/Ao9cVhwPg84
**Morphology = change over time
*Taxonomy = is the science of defining groups of biological organisms on the basis of shared characteristics and giving names to those groups.
* Species distribution or the biological distribution of animals.
*does not need evolution to be considered a discipline*
** A further problem with relying on morphological data is that what may appear, morphologically speaking, to be two distinct species, may in fact be shown by DNA analysis to be a single species. The significance of these differences can be examined through the use of allometric engineering in which one or both species are manipulated to phenocopy the other species.**
(need to clarify that when I use the term evolution, I am referring specifically to speciation, or the idea of a common ancestor, the Darwinist theory that one specie(kind, organism) can change into another. Not the definition of evolution as the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form. i.e. "the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
Synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding)And_So_It_Burns wrote: »Science doesn't require faith because it's demonstrably true. Or else it wouldn't be science.
Exactly…..
We call spinning invalid evidence to fit scientific theories pseudoscience…..
We have already deconstructed the fossil record….And_So_It_Burns wrote: »Hmmm well we have observed evolution in labs and have peer reviewed papers on this observation. Not to mention the mapping of the human genome undoubtedly shows we evolved. We have transitional fossils as well which shows the intermediate stages between to species and some case classes.
As far as human vestigiality goes....And_So_It_Burns wrote: »There's also vestigial organs which are only explainable through evolution.
The pineal gland was originally believed to be a "vestigial remnant" of a larger ? . In 1917 it was known that extract of cow pineals lightened frog skin. Dermatology professor Aaron B. Lerner and colleagues at Yale University, hoping that a substance from the pineal might be useful in treating skin diseases, isolated and named the hormone melatonin in 1958.....
The human appendix = Debunked
In The Descent of Man, Darwin cited the human appendix as an example of a vestigial ? . But Darwin was mistaken: The appendix is now known to be an important source of antibody-producing blood cells and thus an integral part of the human immune system. It may also serve as a compartment for beneficial bacteria that are needed for normal digestion. So the appendix is not useless at all.
Junk DNA = Debunked
“This concept of ‘junk DNA’ is really not accurate. It is an outdated metaphor,” said Richard Myers of the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology in Alabama.
‘Junk DNA’ concept debunked by new analysis of human genome.
Wisdom teeth & human tailbones = Debunked....
Teeth???
It is stated that at one time in our alleged evolution we had more room in our mouths. It also has been suggested that we had to chew more than we do today. Both of these statements may be plausible, however they do not prove or even suggest that we are evolving. These teeth still function for chewing and are by no means useless or vestigial. The lack of space in the mouths of certain people – and by no means all people – is a consequence of the degeneration of the human race in regard to both genetics and lifestyles. This is quite contrary to the concept of evolution, which implies that we are improving and adding features.
Tailbones???
Note that even if there occurs or has occurred a case of a person having a movable tail-like caudal appendage containing bone, that does not mean the appendage is vestigial. And even if human caudal appendages were vestigial (which they are not) this would constitute degenerative change (loss of an ? ) whereas evolution requires generative change, producing new types of organs that did not exist before.
Furthermore, If humans "evolved" from apes (which have no tail)......
Where does the functioning tail come in, that would result in its vestigiality in humans???????
*No apes have tails......Only monkeys*
This is not enough evidence to claim that the human coccyx is vestigial............
ves•tige /ˈvestij/ Biology ~ a part or ? of an organism that has become reduced or functionless in the course of evolution.
The human coccyx was created to anchor the pelvic floor and serves that specific function……And_So_It_Burns wrote: »
Then there's the geological evidence.
Be specific….
That video you posted is talking about adaptation or change over time……
Again….
I am referring specifically to speciation, or the idea of a common ancestor, the Darwinist theory that one specie(kind, organism) can change into another. Not the definition of evolution as the gradual development of something
-
Be specific….
That video you posted is talking about adaptation or change over time……
Again….
I am referring specifically to speciation, or the idea of a common ancestor, the Darwinist theory that one specie(kind, organism) can change into another. Not the definition of evolution as the gradual development of something
[/quote]
He won't get it.
Al Pacino "Devil's ADVOCATE" -Consider the source of your information
AND SO IT BURNS doesn't understand.......... a lot. By a lot, I mean the reason and the push for speciation. Basically the majority of US doctors that are very religious go into medicine/surgical fields. The scientists who go into fossil records are majority-by-far atheists who ENTERED that field-- inspired largely for the purpose of trying to find(and when it couldn't be found--FALSIFY) fossil records to validate their beliefs, publish them,receive grants and make them satisfied. Since all the other scientists in that community are of the same mind, they all accept it, even though every 5 years when points on their evidence are proven to not be accurate and trustworthy they accept it anyway and figure if they fill up the stat sheets/finding then people like AND SO IT BURNS will buy it because he doesn't want to challenge it.
REpeat myself:
CHRISTIAN or other religious scientists simply don't WASTE time trying to dig in dirt for old bones when they can be saving lives and souls. ATHEIST scientists want to validate their faith and get paid for it and be recognized/honored so they flock to the field and practically own it. Thus everything is generally accepted until a religious scientist has to remove themselves from heart surgery to attend a forum 99% conducted and funded by atheists to come and challenge a dumb point unproven as speciation.
I'm surprised AND SO IT still willing to keep trying to argue. He can't see outside the box. I guess we'll let him believe from one cell all life miraculously by accident formed. With all the good points you made, he'll state scientists believe in evolution, which you and I and other religious scientists (who before atheism rose were the scientists in European and Eastern Africa) don't really waste time arguing because we believe in parts of evolution/mutations, but specifically on the point and theory of speciation being true it is not and the scientists are divided on this point themselves. AND SO IT BURNS confuses when scientists post 90% of scientists believe in Evolution that the 90% also believe everything people include in to be a part of evolution, such as speciation.
AND SO IT BURNS has a lot of faith in what he states constantly "WE" (we have observed evolution in labs and have peer reviewed papers on this observation. Not to mention the mapping of the human genome undoubtedly shows we evolved. We have transitional fossils ) have observed.
NO matter how many times it is explained to him that humans have the ability to mutate or inactive cells have the ability to become active or take in diseases,cancers, foreign agents introduced into our bodies THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT we are still HUMAN!!!
Everything below is not my words but a study by Ecklund and Scheitle
Disbelief in ? by Academics4
Discipline %
Physics 40.8
Chemistry 26.6
Biology 41.0
Overall 37.6
Sociology 34.0
Economics 31.7
Political Science 27.0
Psychology 33.0
Overall 31.2
It is true that scientists believe less in the existence of ? than the general population of the United States. However, the recent study by Ecklund, and Scheitle reveals that the most important factors in belief were related to upbringing and family status, and not area of expertise.
Not a quote from Ecklund
90 percent of medical doctors in the United States attend religious services at least occasionally, compared to 81 percent of all adults... [in the general US population]" http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith.shtml
That's my response to YOUR quote:[[[[By "some scientists" you failed to mention that over 90% of scientists accept the theory that's higher than the theory of relativity. There's a good reason why There's no competing theory to evolutionary biology just like there's no competing theory to Einstein's theory of relativity or Newtonian mechanics {LET ME ADD what you didn't. They both believed in ? }. These theories aren't perfect no realm of human knowledge is infallible but these theories are demonstrably true.]]]]
So, your logic is....due to the fact that there isn't a competing theory then this theory must be true???
Hmmm, isn't that what Creationists thought before challenged??? Isn't that what people who thought the Earth was flat thought? Isn't that what every know-it-all think before proven wrong or challenged to the degree of admitting they lack proof/evidence?
Now HERE is DISPROVing AND SO IT BURns again:
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
51% of scientists according to the pewforum believe in ? .
According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in ? , while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.
I dont want you confusing me saying "more scientists are atheist than the general US population" with saying most scientists are atheist. THEY ARE NOT, according to the pewforum.
I could go into why CHEMISTS are majority CHRISTIAN, and mention how the formula and DNA (as AND SO IT know so well) influences their beliefs to INTELLIGENT DESIGN, but it's futile.
Overstand/understand. I gotta go to work -
Glad Bambu had energy to put up on this.
AND SO IT BURNS at least is reading and thinking. He knows I've explained the inception point of where racist Darwin received his ideas from (his brotherhood and his family). He knows the motivation Darwin and other scientists had in instituting this theory. He knows why it was carried on by Stalin/? /America. He knows why we say speciation does not exist and cannot be proven (but he states it happens slowly for a piece of grass to morph into a komodo dragon). He knows why scientists who believe in ? largely do not pursue careers in the field of fossil records. He knows a finch having a different sized beak is still a finch. He just won't accept it.
AND SO IT BURNS is about as useful as a wet match in a cave. -
THE EITHER IN THIS THREAD is heavy as ?
-
Interesting, its a personal belief but there is an higher energy form that appears to be self aware and powerful. I'll leave it at that.
-
You posted a list of “transitional fossils” that redirects to Wikipedia, which is not a problem(I appreciate the free encyclopedia). Its just that you left out the most important part…..
“As noted already by Darwin, the fossil record is incomplete.[1] Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral species from which later groups evolved, but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor.[2]
"In 1859, when Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known. Darwin described the perceived lack of transitional fossils as, "...the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory," but explained it by relating it to the extreme imperfection of the geological record.[2] He noted the limited collections available at that time, but described the available information as showing patterns that followed from his theory of descent with modification through natural selection.[3] Indeed, Archaeopteryx was discovered just two years later, in 1861, and represents a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. Many more transitional fossils have been discovered since then, and there is now abundant evidence of how all classes of vertebrates are related, much of it in the form of transitional fossils"
I posted a list of transitional fossils which happens to be the bane of all pseudoscience based biology. Obviously, these fossils wouldn't exist if creationism were true. The disclaimer you posted earlier is to highlight what has been known since Darwin's time, finding a preserved fossil is rare, finding a fossil that's serves as a transition between two taxa is extremely rare. Since Darwin's time, the fossilized remains of many more transitional organisms have been found not to mention the advance in genetics only further validate his claims.
Here's THE classic transitional fossil. Archaeopteryx How would a creationist explain this?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
Fossil record = incomplete
DNA = evidence for intelligent designhttp://youtu.be/Ao9cVhwPg84
**Morphology = change over time
*Taxonomy = is the science of defining groups of biological organisms on the basis of shared characteristics and giving names to those groups.
Not sure why you googled the definition of the terms I used and I didn't use morphology in that context. Here's the correct definition.
"Morphology is a branch of biology dealing with the study of the form and structure of organisms and their specific structural features. This includes aspects of the outward appearance (shape, structure, colour, pattern) as well as the form and structure of the internal parts like bones and organs."
** A further problem with relying on morphological data is that what may appear, morphologically speaking, to be two distinct species, may in fact be shown by DNA analysis to be a single species. The significance of these differences can be examined through the use of allometric engineering in which one or both species are manipulated to phenocopy the other species.**
You have to understand, in science, especially in modern times, more than one methodology is used in biology. These methodologies usually validated each other. For example, DNA was undiscovered in Darwin's time yet the morphological traits exhibited through animals (especially birds, dinosaurs and primates) were so clear, we could infer that birds are a subset of dinosaurs and humans are a subset of apes. DNA would only validate his observation decades later as a fact. No discipline is perfect and I agree more than one methodology should be used but when multiple methods validate each other it's a slam dunk.
Exactly…..
We call spinning invalid evidence to fit scientific theories pseudoscience…..
We call your world view pseudoscience.
"Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
-
As far as human vestigiality goes....
ves•tige /ˈvestij/ Biology ~ a part or ? of an organism that has become reduced or functionless in the course of evolution.
The human coccyx was created to anchor the pelvic floor and serves that specific function……
You listed some great examples of human vestigiality. These organs don't have to be completely functionless but just at a reduced capacity. As far as human vestigiality goes...wisdom teeth and goose bumbs would probably serve as the most relateable example. As it turns out, goose bumbs serve no purpose to modern day humans but serve as a mechanisms to animals covered in fur to wort off predators and in severe cold. You can see how an animal covered in fur could use this mechanism but humans have no use for it. This is an ode to our fur covered ancestorsIt is stated that at one time in our alleged evolution we had more room in our mouths. It also has been suggested that we had to chew more than we do today. Both of these statements may be plausible, however they do not prove or even suggest that we are evolving. These teeth still function for chewing and are by no means useless or vestigial. The lack of space in the mouths of certain people – and by no means all people – is a consequence of the degeneration of the human race in regard to both genetics and lifestyles. This is quite contrary to the concept of evolution, which implies that we are improving and adding features.
This is completely wrong. I hope for your sake you misspoke. This isn't what evolution states. In alot of cases, natural selection involves removing features which is highlighted by the video I posted. Wisdom teeth are usually removed or impacted. I just had mine removed last month. Wisdom teeth sure are not the work of an intelligent designer. Currently 35% of people are born without these. This number is predicted to only increase. More signs that our species still isn't optimized.
"in regard to both genetics and lifestyles."
This is the driving mechanism of natural selection lol. Lifestyle changes, especially dietary has led to smaller jaws.
Besides organs we could look at it from a genetic standpoint. Whales, and other Cetaceas have the genes for making legs Which is why, on occasion, something occurs known as atavism. This causes animals to occasionally be born with traits that had disappeared generations ago and causes whales and snakes to be born with leg stumps and chicken to be born with teeth.
How does creationism explain this? why do whales have the genes for making feet?Be specific….
That video you posted is talking about adaptation or change over time……
Again….
I am referring specifically to speciation, or the idea of a common ancestor, the Darwinist theory that one specie(kind, organism) can change into another. Not the definition of evolution as the gradual development of something
Lol not this argument. You believe in the driving mechanism behind evolution. "adaptation or change over time…" AKA natural selection but not evolution. You have to understand these minor adaptations over a large time scale and isolation while lead to speciation.
"One example of evolution at work is the case of the hawthorn fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, also known as the apple maggot fly, which appears to be undergoing sympatric speciation.[19] Different populations of hawthorn fly feed on different fruits. A distinct population emerged in North America in the 19th century some time after apples, a non-native species, were introduced. This apple-feeding population normally feeds only on apples and not on the historically preferred fruit of hawthorns. The current hawthorn feeding population does not normally feed on apples. Some evidence, such as the fact that six out of thirteen allozyme loci are different, that hawthorn flies mature later in the season and take longer to mature than apple flies; and that there is little evidence of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6% hybridization rate) suggests that sympatric speciation is occurring. The emergence of the new hawthorn fly is an example of evolution in progress.[20]" -
The scientists who go into fossil records are majority-by-far atheists who ENTERED that field-- inspired largely for the purpose of trying to find(and when it couldn't be found--FALSIFY) fossil records to validate their beliefs, publish them,receive grants and make them satisfied.
Lol this post is full of fail. Not sure if I'll even respond. @bambu is at least making coherent arguments. -
And_So_It_Burns wrote: »Since Darwin's time, the fossilized remains of many more transitional organisms have been found not to mention the advance in genetics only further validate his claims.
Here's THE classic transitional fossil. Archaeopteryx How would a creationist explain this?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
"No intermediate fossils link Archaeopteryx with any of the groups from which it might have evolved."
Vertebrate Life, 3rd ed. (New York: McMillan, 1989), pp. 468, 470.
Perhaps the most significant evidence against the case for Archae is the fossil record itself.
"There are insurmountable problems with that theory. There is the time problem in that superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old."
Hypography Sci-Tech, Study confirms birds not dinosaurs, http://www.hypography.com/article.cfm?id=32555, 8/21/02.
No credible scientist argues this point. Dinosaurs with seemingly bird-like characteristics appear, according to the evolutionary timescale, some 25 to 80 million years after the earliest known actual bird. In other words, according to evolution, Archaeopteryx's grandfather was a bird!
Furthermore, your precious evidence has been proven to be a hoax.....
"One of the authors, Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe, an astrophysicist, has been quoted in a British newspaper as saying the purported hoax was carried out by someone who ''made a paste of crushed limestone from the same period, smeared it around a genuine reptile fossil and then imprinted the feathers.''
The new evidence was historical in nature, he said, and reveals the fossil to have been radically altered in a suspicious manner since it was acquired by the British Museum. He added that although none of the accusers is a paleontologist, they were perfectly qualified to pass judgment on the authenticity of the fossil.
''All you need is a pair of eyes,'' Dr. Wickramasinghe said."
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/05/07/science/authenticity-of-bird-fossil-is-challenged.html
And_So_It_Burns wrote: »You have to understand, in science, especially in modern times, more than one methodology is used in biology. These methodologies usually validated each other. For example, DNA was undiscovered in Darwin's time yet the morphological traits exhibited through animals (especially birds, dinosaurs and primates) were so clear, we could infer that birds are a subset of dinosaurs and humans are a subset of apes. DNA would only validate his observation decades later as a fact. No discipline is perfect and I agree more than one methodology should be used but when multiple methods validate each other it's a slam dunk.
No, you need to understand that DNA and modern technology is debunking Darwin's evolution....
"For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change."
http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html
On The Origin of Species 22 years later, Darwin's spindly tree had grown into a mighty oak. The book contains numerous references to the tree and its only diagram is of a branching structure showing how one species can evolve into many.
The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened. The tree also helped carry the day for evolution. Darwin argued successfully that the tree of life was a fact of nature, plain for all to see though in need of explanation. The explanation he came up with was evolution by natural selection. ...
"As it became clear that HGT was a major factor, biologists started to realise the implications for the tree concept. As early as 1993, some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea the tree of life was more like a web. In 1999, Doolittle made the provocative claim that "the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree" (Science, vol 284, p 2124). "The tree of life is not something that exists in nature, it's a way that humans classify nature," he says."
Dawkins theory of common ancestry debunked by a true scientist......
http://youtu.be/MXrYhINutuIAnd_So_It_Burns wrote: »
We call your world view pseudoscience.
"Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
Anything that goes against evolution is considered a pseudoscience.......
However, when your laws of evolution are broken, your scientists simply bend the theory to fit where it cannot....
Irreversible Evolution? Dust Mites Show Parasites Can Violate Dollo’s Law
By Christie Wilcox | March 8, 2013 5:00 pm
In evolutionary biology, the notion of irreversibility is known as Dollo’s Law after the Belgian paleontologist that first hypothesized it in 1893. He stated that once a lineage had lost or modified organs or structures, that they couldn’t turn back the clock and un-evolve those changes. Or, as he put it, “an organism is unable to return, even partially, to a previous stage already realized in the ranks of its ancestors.”
While this isn’t the first time that Dollo’s Law has been questioned, it’s the first strong evidence that parasitism might not be the evolutionary “blind alley” we tend to describe it as. The more scientists use genetics to study the evolutionary relationships between organisms, the more they find that Dollo’s Law is less law-like than once thought, broadening our understanding of evolution as a whole and challenging our assumptions about how it works.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/science-sushi/?p=2641#.UT62mRwz0th
Another one bites the dust.................
As far as your flies go....
The main example used by evolutionists is Diane Dodd's fruit fly experiment........
However......
Diane Dodd's fruit flies are still fruit flies, regardless of whether they prefer mates who eat maltose or starch......
No evidence of a "new" species.....
http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/media/objects/5697/5834441/ebook/htm/0cc6e.htm?14.07
I will get back to you about the "whales with feet".....
You shouldn't have bit, b......
-
Quick response. All of it can easily be refuted but ill wait for you to respond to my atavism argument. Good luck.
-
If you accept natural selection I don't think you can reject evolution
As a gene pool changes it only makes logical sense that they will differ so much from their ancestors that reproduction would be impossible -
And_So_It_Burns wrote: »Quick response. All of it can easily be refuted but ill wait for you to respond to my atavism argument. Good luck.
I know it, studied it and took classes and passed the tests.....
Atavisms violate one of the central evolutionary principles,known as Dollo’s law, that “an organism is unable to return,even partially,to a previous stage already realizedin the ranks of its ancestors.”
Atavism (at'eVIZeM), the appearance in an individual of a characteristic not apparent in the preceding generation. At one time it was believed that such a phenomenon was thought to be a “throwback” to a hypothetical ancestral prototype. The term is seldom used today since science has shown that such abnormal characteristics can be explained by the inheritance of a pair of recessive genes.
There is a complex DNA program which causes the development of the normal bone in this part of the whale’s anatomy. A mutational defect in this program could easily cause one or more extra pieces of bone to form, which would almost inevitably be in the same region, either separate from or fused with the normal bone. In the same way, people can be born with extra fingers, ribs, nipples, etc. If this should extend to two extra pieces of bone, no matter how misshapen or otherwise these were, enthusiastic evolutionists would no doubt interpret one additional piece of bone as a ‘femur,’ and any second one would be labeled a ‘tibia’ (shin bone).
Above: Photo of the skeleton of a Greenland Right whale, with bony disease. The small pelvic bone is seen below.
From E.J.Slijper, Whales,2 fig. 226, p. 423.
Below: Drawing shows a similar (small) pelvic bone of a Sperm whale with an even smaller abnormal lump of bone fused to it, which abnormality is labeled by evolutionists a ‘vestigial femur.’ However, this tiny blob of bone bears little resemblance to the leg bone of any land animal.
And_So_It_Burns wrote: »
Lol not this argument. You believe in the driving mechanism behind evolution. "adaptation or change over time…" AKA natural selection but not evolution. You have to understand these minor adaptations over a large time scale and isolation while lead to speciation.
Wrong.....
And you need to drop some evidence for your grandiose claim that "minor adaptations over a large time scale and isolation while lead to speciation".......
Change over time is observable and obvious......
One species changing into another has never and will never be observed.......
Again.....
Definition 1 is invalid.....
Definition 2 is valid........
ev·o·lu·tionˌ evəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: evolution; plural noun: evolutions
1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection "his interest in evolution"
2. the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding
-
According to my research there are exceptions to Dollo's law
-
According to my research there are exceptions to Dollo's law
LOL.....
Exceptions where it fails.....
I posted those.....
The last time I checked laws did not come with exceptions.....
law
lô/
noun
noun: law; noun: the law
1. the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
"they were taken to court for breaking the law"
2. a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.
"the second law of thermodynamics"
a generalization based on a fact or event perceived to be recurrent.
"the first law of American corporate life is that dead wood floats"
3. the body of divine commandments as expressed in the Bible or other religious texts.
synonyms: principle, rule, precept, directive, injunction, commandment, belief, creed, credo, maxim, tenet, doctrine, canon
"a moral law"
the Pentateuch as distinct from the other parts of the Hebrew Bible (the Prophets and the Writings).
noun: Law; noun: the Law
the precepts of the Pentateuch.
plural noun: the Law of Moses
Fallback smallback......
