does evolution exsist

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by sifreak21, Jan 19, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    nobody has actually proved that macro evolution occurs because nobody has ever witnessed it or demonstrated it in the lab, therefor this comment falls under HR's new proposed ban rule.
    HR?
    i am not denying anything, i am giving you the facts ophiolite.
    i am sorry if that makes you or anyone else uncomfortable.
    think what you must ophiolite, the facts are indisputable and speak for themselves.
    the following is a fact:
    no one has documented, witnessed or proved macroevolution in the lab.
    it's as simple as that.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Proof doesn't have to be witnessed directly or demonstrated in the lab. It can be witnessed indirectly through the fossil record. Also DNA evidence is technically "in the lab". Insisting on a million year experiment is a rather ignorant demand.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2011
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    and there you have it people.
    anyone that forces the evolution issue will be murdered.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    This is a science forum, not a kook forum. You are long overdue for a permanent ban.

    ~String
     
  8. sifreak21 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,671
    nice knowing you leopold.. evolution is all around us open your ignorant eyes. even in your own body there is signs of evolution!
     
  9. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,267
    The problem with your point here leo is that you do not understand the real scientific definition of macroevolution, so you apply your own definition which allows you to reject out of hand all of the real examples of macroevolution that exist and have been provided to you - however when asked (on multiple occasions) to provide us with your own definition of macroevolution so that we may see if there is evidence of it taking place according to your own criteria, you refuse to do so, because (presumably) by doing so you leave yourself open to being proved wrong.

    This is clear proof that you have no interest in entering into a discussion in any honest or meaningful way - this is why you are deeply dishonest - this is why you are a troll - this is why you deserve to be banned.

    On balance though, while a ban of some description is clearly well deserved for your behaviour, it might be more useful to see if you are capable of learning anything before the banhammer is smashed through your densely armoured cranium.
    Naturally the first and most obvious step would be you making a full and formal public apology for all the lies you have posted, but that's clearly insufficient, so how about posting in a very precise manner, in detail, giving hypothetical examples; what criteria must be met for your special secret definition of macroevolution to be fulfilled.
    In addition provide a fully argued case as to why you feel you should be granted a special case for the the correct definition of macroevolution not to apply to you. (correctly defined, Macroevolution describes change that occurs at or above the level of species)
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2011
  10. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    These birds are not proof of evolution; they just don't rule out the possibility of evolution- just like they don't rule out the possibility of intelligent design. From an ID perspective, the small transitions between these birds are indicative of a built in flexibility of the original DNA programming, which allows for these relatively minor changes over time.

    These transitions are to be expected from an ID perspective and an evolution perspective.

    Again, same as above. Any proof you believe that you have from the fossil record is simply not so. The fossil record does not show DNA processes, which would be necessary to prove DNA evolution. It does not show direct hereditary connections; it shows only discreet, random examples. The fossil record shows nothing of any real value to the evolution argument, unless your view of evolution is simply "different animals existed in the past".

    In evolutionary "science", macroevolution should be defined as a randomly mutated addition of entirely new, fully integrated, functioning DNA code which wasn't present in the ancestors of a given species. So, in order to prove macroevolution, these criteria must be met:

    1) The language of DNA must be fully understood.
    2) A DNA record of every single transitional animal must be known, and a chain of heredity must be fully realized. Specifically, the DNA code behind every beneficial mutation must be known.
    3) The process by which these random mutations happened must also be known, to rule out deliberate interference from an intelligent source.

    So basically, macro evolution will probably never be proven. It's way beyond our capabilities.
     
  11. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    It's evidence, and compelling enough to show that evolution is the most likely explanation beyond a reasonable doubt. Your idea of proof is absent in biology, as some of us have tried to explain.


    Where is your evidence for this alleged boundary between change and more change?

    ID is not a scientific theory, it cannot be falsified, it makes no predictions.

    It doesn't have to show DNA. Morphological similarities are evidence enough to show evolution is a fact even without DNA. DNA of modern animals also shows these evolutionary connections. You are absolutely wrong.


    Firstly, you are using the term "macroevolution" (as well as "proven") as only a creationist would use it. If evolution is a fact, so is macroevolution, that's the whole fucking point.

    There is no evidence whatsoever for intelligent intervention or a creator.
     
  12. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,267
    nope - you've way over complicated it - all that needs to happen is for one species to give rise to another species for the conditions to be fulfilled.

    had you read to the end of the post the correct definition was there:

    The only condition I would apply to that not being the case is if you can fulfill the same criteria that leo needs to fulfill in order for the wrong definition to surplant the right definition, specifically:

     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2011
  13. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    That pesky DNA is really a nuisance for evolutionists isn't it? As long as there's a "connection" between species, that's all the proof you need that evolution is true. The problem with evolutionists is that you look at a biological body as if it is nothing more than a shell, with nothing on the inside- no DNA accountability- just some generic meaty flesh and bones, molded into the shape of an animal, each one similar enough to the last.

    Your views of evolution are as simplistic as your superficial semantic arguments against intelligent design. Instead of talking about the underlying issues, you'd rather recite definitions, insult people, and ban all those who don't mold into your idea of a perfect repartee partner.
     
  14. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    DNA of living and recently extinct animals shows the intimate evolutionary connections between them.

    Morphological connections are likewise not arbitrary, the precise shape of a bone is enough to show kinship.
     
  15. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    for the first time since beginning posting in this thread i am starting to be scared.
    i recently made a post where i copy/pasted a quote from "science" that was available online.
    i just got back from a 30 minute search for this publication and it is nowhere to be found.
    i tried the google and search canyon engines to no avail.
    if anyone can find this publication online i would appreciate a link to it.
    i CAN find sites that offer the issue for a price, the site i copy/pasted from offered the issue for free in PDF format.

    anyway here is another link that provides some snippets from that issue among other things.
    your comments on this will be appreciated.
    http://myreality.churchofreality.org/index.php?showtopic=1874
     
  16. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,267
    not at all - DNA evidence provides the most compelling and detailed confirmation of common descent.
    It confirmed what we already thought we knew through more "traditional" taxonomical methods, and even provided answers to some previous enigmas of common descent such as why our closest living relative has 48 chromosomes while we have only 46, or why most mammals can produce their own vitamin C but humans need to get it from out diet (we have the gene but it is damaged so can no longer be expressed).
    I pointed out that your criteria were unnecessarily complicated because they were unnecessarily complicated for the purposes of the discussion in hand, and one was laughably untestable.

    If a poster (in this case leo) demands evidence of a phenomena - rejects the evidence when it is presented because he feels it does not meet the right cirteria - but then refuses to give the criteria that it must meet, then a request for the criteria to be defined in order for the discussion to progress is not an unreasonable one and is not simply a matter of semantic quibbling - indeed if anything it is a matter of semantic quibbiling from the other party.

    Furthermore Iam quite capable of discussing evolution to a very great degree of detail if asked to, and if I am discussing it with someone who demonstrates that they have an understanding of more than the basics - sadly neither leo - nor yourself so far - have been able to demonstrate this. should either of you do so you would find my tone considerably more receptive.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2011
  17. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,267
    don't be scared leo - while quote mining is a form of lying, it probably won't lead to a libel suit.

    ps - I have a pdf of the original article if you like - but seeing as you claim to have me on ignore I guess its tough shit

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2011
  18. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I would have to teach you everything I know about science and evolution. Do us a favor and read some Dawkins. Educate yourself on these issues and then maybe you can come back and speak intelligently about them.
     
  19. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    DNA evidence proves that all life code is written in the same language, and that there are many similarities between species. There definitely is a connection between a fish and a human, but this connection is one of common design, not common ancestry.
     
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    There are distinguished philosophers of science, like Sir Karl Popper, a man of impeccable credentials and no religious ax to grind, who have openly questioned whether evolution is a science at all, in principle and not just in practice, because its assertions are not potentially falsifiable. A true science, like physics, makes claims that can be tested and thus potentially falsified; this vulnerability is what makes it worthy of belief when despite this, the falsification does not happen. But evolution does not make claims of this kind. Furthermore, it is one of the touchstones of science that it is based on repeatable experiments. The data used to support evolution are neither experiments nor repeatable, nor can they be, since the origin of species on earth was a unique event. This doesn’t necessarily make evolution nonsense, but it strongly suggests it doesn’t have the right to demand the kind of acquiescence that physics demands on the strength of its being straightforwardly a science. What exactly evolution is, if Popper is right and it is not quite a science in the conventional sense, is an open question. It is probably not without significance that what is now called biology used to be called natural history, an older and perhaps more appropriate concept.
    http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html

    comments?
    other than the usual personal attacks that is.
     
  21. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Evolution can be falsified in 2 seconds. Find me a rabbit bone in the Cambrian layer. You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis, and that proves you are too ignorant to even comment on the subject.
     
  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    why? so you can say "the earth was folded over to cause the misplacement"?
    analysis: fail
     
  23. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page