does evolution exsist

yeah, well i'm on drugs at the moment. call back tomorrow.

i might need to retract that james because on the outside evolution makes sense and its mechanisms seem sound. when you start thinking about it though you start asking for the evidence, the tests, which prove it and you find there simply isn't any. the fossil record does not prove evolution. this is why "punctuated equilibria" was introduced. some evolutionists even claim a bird was hatched from a reptile egg. how crazy is that?

i hold evolutionists to the same flames as evolutionists hold creationists to.
creationists have the added disadvantage of getting around the U.S. first amendment.

no. i believe my stance is clear. where are the tests? to say something happens without any test to prove it is not science, even you must admit that.

it's in one of the links i posted.

the one that comes to mind is "piltdown man".
there are others but i can't recall them.

from one of my bookmarks:

http://www.paleodirect.com/fakefossils1.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I will give you a hint, the creationists are lying. There are certainly tests one can make with regard to evolution, tests involving both looking for certain kinds of fossils, or through evaluating DNA from modern creatures to determine relationships.

And you think this falsifies evolution? We already know most mutations are neutral or harmful!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

in combination with the fossil record this shows evolution to be suspect.
this implies a slow, gradual process which the fossil record simply DOES NOT SHOW, thus "punctuated equilibria".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh really? Then tell me exactly what you think that article from Science is saying? You seem to have posted it in relation to Darwin’s/Grant’s Finches. What is the connection between the two? What does the article have to say regarding those finches?

Clue: The article does not refute macroevolution, as is clear from in the in-context quotation as opposed to your out-of-context quotation.

 

it is apparently saying the mechanisms of microevolution cannot be applied to macroevolution.
it makes sense because macroevolution isn't a process, it's a result.

your assessment is correct.

that microevolution doesn't lead to macroevolution.
which also makes sense.
even you must admit that science has never witnessed a dog giving birth to anything other than a dog.

it seems to refute the aggregate changes of microevolution leads to macroevoltion.

can you post any links that shows your color experiment can be applied to nature?

 

False and refuted by observation of new specie shown in photo below:

True dogs give birth to dogs, but not always with exactly the same DNA (I.e. microevolution is real). Each generation’s minor DNA difference can slowly accumulate in many thousands of generations to make a new species if the environment favors a new life form more than the old. (Macroevolution, the accumulation of microevolution changes, is real.)
Here is an example of guinea pigs becoming the quite different species, the Preá, shown in photograph, via thousands of generations of microevolution:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

A case of microevolution producing new species (macroevolution via accumulated microevolution)
This happened very rapidly (in only 8000 years) for seven factors / reasons listed* at end of this post and discussed here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2687668&postcount=1016

Look carefully at photo: There was little evolutionary pressure to change the hair growth pattern, so you can still see the two locations on the sides of the head where guinea pig eyes are located. This new species evolved on tiny island with no predators so eyes slowly moved together every generation for better depth perception. - No need for 360 vision to watch out for non-existent predators, but good depth perception greatly aided survival . I.e. not being one of the many in each generation that starved to death in the dry season (as did more rabbit like hind legs for hopping over rocks). More discussion of this at end of this post.

“… There are approximately 40 of these little animals, called Preá in Portuguese, living on tiny island called Moleques do Sul, which is about 8 km separated for a much larger Island called Florianopolis that have been studied by Pontifica Universidade Católic under leadership of Sandro Bonatto. About 8000 years ago, these two islands were one as the sea level was much lower. The tiny island is about the size of a football field and mainly rocks. But has some grass on ~10% of it between the rocks.

These Preá are so inbreed that DNA tests (type used in Brazil to determine disputed paternity, at least) cannot determine any differences. They are about half the size of the main island animals they evolved from during 8000 years of separation. Smaller size was favored by selection because of the very limited food supply. They are the only mammals on the tiny island and have no predators. - I.e. population is limited only by the lack of food for more than 40 but probably has been slightly increasing as they evolved to be ever smaller each 1000 years. (Probably no more than 20 of them lived after the connection to the main island was cut off 8000 years ago by the melting ice.)

Their tiny island is part of a state park, now with special protection - only qualified researchers can legally visit, but some fishing boats do at times. The great fear is that one will leave a cat on the island. - Then this recently evolved new species will go extinct. ..." {It is new species by standard definition: They cannot breed with guinea pigs even by artificial insemination. – Researchers tried to help insure their unique DNA would not be lost. As the Preá lack genetic diversity they could all be wiped out by a disease as well as a fisherman's cat left on the island.}

Text quoted above is from: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2205207&postcount=83

A final comment {from the next post, 84} on the evolution of the preá:

"... A tiny population (40 or perhaps only 20, initially) living on the edge of extinction for 8000 years (due to limited food, and no predators) have very rapid evolution compared to a large population living in relative ease with abundant grass, seeds etc., except for being caught and eaten. (The predators eat the beneficial genetic innovations often before they can become a dominate part of the large gene pool) Thus the preá did in 8000 years what normally might have taken 8 million years. - Became a new species. The "easy-living" main island guinea pigs did not evolve - they are still guinea pigs.

Also interesting to note that once genetic identity has been achieved and ill effects of incest eliminated, then when a hail storm or hurricane killed most of the preá, they could quickly rebuild the population back up to the food limit so long as one male and a few females made it thru the storm. In this sense, what is normally a problem (lack of genetic diversity) is actually a survival aid! ..."

Text below is from more recent post discussing eye locations at: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2688946&postcount=1053

“… {Forward looking eyes} is normally the case for animals that prey on others, like eagles, hawks, lions, snakes, wolves, polar bears, man, etc. as that makes the field of vision of the two eyes overlap and thus give good depth perception (provides stereoscopic effects); however if the animal is the prey and eats grass etc then the eyes look out to both sides as nearly a 360 field of vision is more an aid to survival than good depth perception. Thus cows, zebras , guinea pigs, wildebeest, etc. (all the grass eaters), pigeons and other seed or fruit eating birds, and bottom of the food chain fish, have eyes on the side of the head for near 360 field of vision. (No need for depth perception as the grass, seeds or fruit doesn't try to escape. They don't need depth perception, to chase their food, but 360 vision helps them not be eaten.)

In the case of preá, their guinea pig ancestors 8000 years ago were no exception - they had eyes looking out to both sides. However as the ice melted and raised the sea level and separated about 20 of these guinea pigs (all there was food for on the tiny new island, 8km by boat from the main island), they were the only mammals on the football field sized rocky island (only 10% with grass between the rocks) - they had no other animals that would prey on them. So those in the next generation with slightly more forward looking eyes and slightly better depth perception were better able to jump over the rocks safely to find some grass to eat. (They also got more rabbit like hind legs to aid that jumping over rocks.)

As in-breeding made more individuals in each generation than could survive those with the slightly more forward looking eyes tended not to be among those that starved to death. Likewise the smaller ones tended to be among those that survived as they needed less food to do so. Now, 8000 years later, the preá have eyes very close to each other, which are only forward looking with excellent depth perception and are slightly less than half the size of guinea pigs so there is food (grass between the rocks) for 42 of them (or only 40 in dry years). …”

-------------
* Enviromental theory does also predict what factors will speed the development of a new species. The major ones are:

(1) Isolated gene pool, so new beneficial gene for that environment will not be too quickly lost among a wider population
(2) Very small gene pool so new beneficial gene can quickly spread throughout the small gene pool.
(3) No Predators to eat the bearer of the new beneficial gene before it can be spread into later generations.
(4) Stable conditions may make a potentially beneficial gene have little difference in survival. For example, a creature that only can digest bananas might have a genetic change that allowed it to digest grass, but if there are lots of bananas available and bananas are what the bearer of the grass digestion gene had learned to eat from its mother, that gene, although potentially beneficial will not offer much survival advantage, but, when the massive banana blight hits and 90% of the gene pool starves to death it will be quite beneficial. Thus, guinea pigs living in a large gene pool with easy conditions (on the nearby large island) did not change.
(5)Very harsh environment conditions make even small genetic advantage (say eyes with only one degree more visual over lap than "normal") make a very big survival advantage. - Get that new gene quickly selected for in a small population. Minute shifts in eye location accumulated over thousands of generation converted the guinea pig's side looking eyes into forward looking eyes of the Preá .
(6) The same harsh condition lasting for long periods, not just a passing drought or fire etc. but same harsh conditions for tens of thousands of generation (such as a significant fraction of the gene pool starving to death each year due to over breeding) rapidly select for even tiny genetic advantages.
(7) Being trapped in a tiny areas with no means of moving to where conditions are less harsh.

PS. This post is for others.- I am under no illusion that facts will change your false, unfounded, beliefs.

 

provide the link to the science journal that provides the scientific names of the parents and the offspring.

i have read your previous post and ALL of your references comes from sciforums with no outside sources.

 

Even the punctuated parts happened relatively slowly. This does not undermine the theory in the least.

 

and:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

 

Jesus f'ing christ, what's wrong with your brain?

 

you said PE proceeds slowly. i posted a link that says you are wrong.
i can provide more if you wish.

 

No, evolution does not exist. There is absolutely no evidence for it. Any "evidence" that has been presented has been false. I give to you Lucy. The supposed evidence to show the missing link between man and ape. What happened to disprove her? She turned out to be false. Now granted I'm not saying absolutely NO evoluton exists. A recent example is a certain moth that changed colors. What I am saying is that evolution does not happen outside of species like a dog is not going to eventually evolve into a cat. It might however have its ears changes over the centuries because of some incident or food shortage, ect.

 

False. You did not read post 267 where an irrefutable example of very rapid evolution of new species is given.

If you read it, then just like others (especially leopold99 & Saqest, etc.) you simply ignore facts, even photographs of a new species which in the facial hair still show where the eyes were in the species they evolved form.

 

I'm not wrong. Periods of rapid evolution are only rapid relative to how long it takes otherwise. It still takes millions of years.

Lucy was not fake. And there have been many more hominid discoveries since then.

 

without a legitimate source it's only your opinion.
so far you haven't posted any.

 

and the source for this opinion is?

 

I've just spent the last hour or so digging up as much additional information as I could find on the Cavia intermedia. Whilst I do indeed believe that this is an obvious and compelling example of speciation, unless I am missing something, the conclusion that was drawn regarding the repositioning of the eyes is wrong. Going by the photo presented here, the eyes have clearly remained in more or less the same place as those of it's cousin, the Cavia magna. See here as well.

 

It's not an opinion.

 

The requested information was already provided in sciforums post 83 link given, but here is a quote of it again for your convenience:

" ... They are now a new species (Cavia Intermedia) but closely related to Cavia Magna of the main island. They are about the size and shape of a small rat, but with a face that looks much like a monkey, or even human, and fur covered (except the feet) with no tail. ..."

AFAIK, there are no journal articles in English. There are only 40 to 42 of these new animals existing in all the world, all on a tiny Brazilian island, which AFAIK only have been studied by Pontifica Universidade Católic under leadership of Sandro Bonatto. Others do not have access to them, so of course there are no papers on them in English.

To protect this tiny population no others are allowed on the island, but search under her name and you will find she has more than 100 papers, a few deal with the new species, but they are in Portuguese, so not much point in my listing them. They are so newly discovered that I don't think their scientific name, Cavia Intermedia, has official standing yet. Fact that they cannot mate with the species they evolved from, Cavia Magna, even via artificial insemination, establishes that they are a new species. Just looking at the photograph already given show many pronounced differences, especially the tiny flat face with very closely spaced eyes and the more rabbit like hind legs.

 

How is it, that after all this time, and after all the effort that everyone has put into explaining that this is not how evolution works, you persist with this straw man bullshit?

Evolution doesn't posit that dogs give birth to anything other than dogs. Every single creature on this planet gives birth to those of it's own kind. This is true no matter how much it gradually evolves over millions of years, they key word here being gradually. This is still the case even if punctuated equilibrium is the primary mechanism of macroevolution as even that is a gradual process (although not as gradual as what the standard model features).