Originally posted by: Gibsons
It seems we have two different theories.
I'm talking about the theory of evolution, a largely Darwinian model based on variation of alleles over time and natural selection.
I really have no idea what to call your version, it seems to be somewhat Lamarckian, but with a single end goal regardless of selection. Pretty damn bizarre.
Originally posted by: oldman420
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Evolutionists and science has been trying to prove evolution since the dawn of time. Not only is there no evidence supporting evolution, but science actually disproves evolution. If you believe in evolution over ID, then you are believing in blind faith of a factless theory.
no evidence?
i am sorry but I just don't buy that.
Originally posted by: oldman420
how about showing us ANY evidence that all of this came from a cosmic creator?
aside from geneses what evidence is there to support creationism? none there is a body of evidence that backs evolution as a real thing that is occurring.
http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
Evolution is a broad topic, but, yes, it is a proven fact. Its mechanisms are what are theory.Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: Tuktuk
You misunderstood what I was trying to say. Evolution is proven, it is accepted as fact. Like I said, as true as gravity pulling things to Earth. There is plenty that shows the evolutionary cycle of humans over millions of years, and every new fossil found falls perfectly in line with evolutionary theory.
You're wrong, which proves your own lack of knowlegde in this area. Scientist, evolutionists, biologists etc, all leading people in their fields do not say evolution is a proven fact. Nowhere has it been proven as a fact. You can't prove that! You can't even show me a linear progression of fossil records over a 55 million year period.
There is nothing that proves evolution. You've failed miserablely and I've given you the easiest assignment of all... show me a progression of fossils. We haven't touched on how plants and animals came from the same cell yet, but I know you can't prove that either.
Originally posted by: oldman420
how about showing us ANY evidence that all of this came from a cosmic creator?
aside from geneses what evidence is there to support creationism? none there is a body of evidence that backs evolution as a real thing that is occurring.
http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: Mo0o
because human have been "observing" animals for what.. 10,000 years? And we CAN observe evolution and speciation and all these things just not as often with larger, more complex animals because of developmental entrenchment. Btw, we can see evolution with modern animals, but only after natural disasters. There was a study of birds living on an island that suffered a major hurricane. Before the hurricane the birds exhibited a certain phenotype that made it adept at dry weather conditions. but after the hurricane hit and everything became flooded, a new phenotype became dominant, one that fared much better under wet conditions. This is evolution. Human's selective breeding of the wolf has given us the domestic dog, a species that is much more docile than a wild wolf.
We can also observe evolution in a test tube with RNA viruses
And yes, Appears to be, because we are filling in the dots. Even with more fossil, it will still "appear" to be becuase we are looking at the remains after the fact. Do you know the concept of "theory?" People still say the "THEORY" of natural selection because things in biology can never be proven, we can only gather overwhelming evidence to support a theory. Please read "Wonderful Life" by Gould or take a real evolution class before spouting off nonsense.
I'm also curious to ask why you, someone with no training in paleontology, archaelogy, geology, evolutionary biology believes theres something thousands of world class scientists have missed. There's no science conspiracy for natural selection. If a scientist can suffiicently disprove natural selection in front of his peers, he would be seen as a revolutionary in scientific thinking, are you saying this is not incentive enough for people to try to disprove it? That only reason it hasn't is becuase natural selection has held up under scrutiny from the scientific community. It's rather interesting that everyone ID defender on these boards, who unwaveringly deny the evidence supporting natural selection, has never studied it in a serious academic manner.
And in 10,000 years no new species or any signs of evolution have been recorded and agreed upon by scientists and evolutionists as fact.
Cleary you have failed in your own reserach. You cite skull fragements as proof, when prominent scientists have said they are either fakes or not proof of evolution.
Why are you right and the people you say prove your point are wrong?
So all these birds magically changed? Evolution is the changing of a species through breeding. What you're saying is evolution is when Mc Donald's is out of Big Macs so I order a chicken sandwich. Sorry, that's not evolution.
But since you like birds, what did the woodpecker evolve from? No other bird is like it in the world and thing about it contradict how birds should work. Yet it exists... your excuse for this? If it evolved from something, we should be able to find what it evolved from.
Evolution is continuous. You just said it has stopped in the last 10,000 years, but yet for evolution to work it must be visiable as a continous process. We should see animials evolving into humans, single cells evolving into new species, yet we don't. When's the last time a single cell animal popped off a new species? NEVER. lol We got lots of lab data to prove that... we should see evolution at the cellular level much more clearly than anything else.
But you can't prove that, because it doesn't happen. Just like you can't explain the lack of fossil records. Just like you can't explain why the population of the planet is so misaligned with your 55 million+ years of evolution.
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: Tuktuk
Dirtboy, I have to believe someone commiting so many logical fallacies in their argument has to be a troll. If you aren't, I encourage you to take Anthropology 101 at your local community college (or if you are in school already, take it there). You obviously are not familiar with evolutionary theory and I think it would open your eyes a little, if you are willing for them to be opened.
edit: No I'm not going to lay out the fossil record for you, except to say that the linear progression is proven with fossils. I'm not here to be a teacher, only to tell you that the knowledge exists and you can learn on your own.
I knew you'd give up. We've only begun and you can't prove yourself.
Let's look at the facts ape-man.
I ask you for a linear progression of fossils of anything, man, horse, something. You response... *silence* followed by, but Evolution is a fact!! *cries*
So I ask to prove yourself and you can't.
So your link stuff that says horses have evolved over a 55 million year period, but no substantial fossil records. I have studied the same classes as you, been to top museums unlike you, and never seen proof. But you say it's there. I have and will continue to prove you are completely 100% wrong. You're just too closed minded to realize it and you will fall back on your undieing faith in evolution.
So let's say horses started 55 million years ago, but your testimony is that they were around long before that.
Let's say there was only one horse then that reproduced asexually, also an inaccurate fact.
Let's say the horse population doubled every 10 years, even though they can reproduce much quicker.
So, 55 million years divided by 10 is 5.5 million years.
So we can use simple math to determine how many horses have lived and estimate the current population.
That is:
2^5,500,000 - 1
Wow. That's so many horses, every bit of land would be covered by them 3 high or more.
Since so many horses lived, acording to your "facts" and testimony, providing a linear progression of fossils showing their evolution would be simple. There should be so many horse bones around, I should trip over them. So where are all the fossils, where are all the horses and why can't you show this?
Too hard?
How about humans or ape-men, which you claim as fact but also was rebuked by science.
You sight 4,000,000 year old bone fragments.
Okay, first human started 4 million years ago.
Reproduced every 100 years.
That means, there should be 2^400,000 - 1 humans running around, with loads of fossil records over the 4,000,000 year span. But there's not fossil records or any proof of this either.
What did you professors spoon feed you as an excuse for this?!?
Call me a troll all you want. You all criticize other people for believing different than you, citing that you have abosulute unconditional scientific proof that evolution is FACT. You jump on those people claiming they are stupid blind believers. I ask you simply to prove it and you can't. Now you go running... typical losers of a debate. When you can't win, go cry to your professors who brain washed you. It is you who believe in blind faith of evolution.
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: oldman420
how about showing us ANY evidence that all of this came from a cosmic creator?
aside from geneses what evidence is there to support creationism? none there is a body of evidence that backs evolution as a real thing that is occurring.
http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
This arguement is invalid. Science proves genes are regressive. Mutations? You've got to be kidding me. What are the odds that the current number of 3,000,000 distinct species all mutated from a single cell that magically showed up on planet Earth? And all these species have adapted so perfectly to our environment.
Can you show me the millions of species that mutated into something that failed? Certainly along the way there must have been billions of failed attempts at evolution to get to 3,000,000 working forms. Anything to say about that?
Odds are more likely that you'd win the lotto than this, yet you base your beliefs on it?? Wow.
Originally posted by: Mo0o
so what do you make of fossils? are all dead animals fossilized? What is the probability of fossilization?
Your math of the estimation of how many humans have lived is wrong also. Even if you consider that the earth has been around for 10,000 years, going by your math 2^10000 that is an incredibly high number still.
Originally posted by: dirtboy
You've got to be kidding me... show me proof of mutation. Well, we can't.
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: Mo0o
so what do you make of fossils? are all dead animals fossilized? What is the probability of fossilization?
Your math of the estimation of how many humans have lived is wrong also. Even if you consider that the earth has been around for 10,000 years, going by your math 2^10000 that is an incredibly high number still.
We have lots of complete dinosaur bones, which were around long before anything else.
According to the sites you all linked, I used your time frames and generously slow reproductive rates.
Now you're saying not all fossils fossilized.
I'd think enough out of 2^5,500,000 - 1 would have to show plenty of proof. We should be able to link them up and measure the differences in the slight changes of the evolutionary cycle. But we can't.
So we change and say, that's not what happened dirtboy, we mutated. :roll:
You've got to be kidding me... show me proof of mutation. Well, we can't.
Originally posted by: Tuktuk
Appeal to ignorance. Look it up, because your argument is soaked in it.
Call it throwing it the towel, I don't really care. Like I said I'm not here to be a teacher, because if someone believes there isn't any evidence of evolution that is exactly what they need.
You say Wiki isn't a good source. That would be a fair statement if you were citing scholarly sources. You seem to love to talk about horses and falsely characterize evolution, instead of addressing the fossil record proving evolution in humans or the molecular evidence proving evolution in other animals.
Besides the fact that I don't feel the need to teach an anthropology lesson, I have the feeling that if I show conclusive evidence you will simply attack the source instead of address anything the evidence suggests. Such is the case with the Wiki article, where you chose to ignore everything in it. If it was so unreliable you should've been able to pick it apart and prove it so.
Originally posted by: Mwilding
Evolution is a broad topic, but, yes, it is a proven fact. Its mechanisms are what are theory.
You can't win this argument by straw man challenges against average joes on the internet. The only way you can get any high ground here is to defend your opinion. Frankly, if you opinion is that Intelligent Design is the way of things, I'd like to see you try. ID is as scientific as Scientology and is only barely hanging on to its religious upbringing.
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: Tuktuk
Appeal to ignorance. Look it up, because your argument is soaked in it.
Call it throwing it the towel, I don't really care. Like I said I'm not here to be a teacher, because if someone believes there isn't any evidence of evolution that is exactly what they need.
You say Wiki isn't a good source. That would be a fair statement if you were citing scholarly sources. You seem to love to talk about horses and falsely characterize evolution, instead of addressing the fossil record proving evolution in humans or the molecular evidence proving evolution in other animals.
Besides the fact that I don't feel the need to teach an anthropology lesson, I have the feeling that if I show conclusive evidence you will simply attack the source instead of address anything the evidence suggests. Such is the case with the Wiki article, where you chose to ignore everything in it. If it was so unreliable you should've been able to pick it apart and prove it so.
dirtboy +1, evolutionist +0
Originally posted by: Tuktuk
What you don't understand, dirtboy, is nobody feels the need to present the evidence in detail here because it is widely available for any person with half a brain to read. Your claim is equivalent to saying the Earth is flat and because none of us on these forums are providing evidence to the contrary, it must be flat. When in fact the Earth is round, and because that is so extremely obvious to any individual with even the slightest bit of intelligence, or any stupid individual who chooses to take the time to actually read the evidence supporting that claim, there is simply no need to argue about the widely accepted fact.
Originally posted by: Tuktuk
This is quite entertaining. I sure hope you're just trolling dirtboy, because you're doing the equivalent of covering your ears going "La la la la... La la la la.. I can't hear you... la la la la.."
Scientific evidence has been provided and you keep just throwing random numbers out that have no basis in fact and no sources to back them up. Numerous sources have been giving explaining evolution in detai. I don't even know why I'm wasting my time writing this much, maybe in hopes you say "Just kidding, guys..."
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: Tuktuk
What you don't understand, dirtboy, is nobody feels the need to present the evidence in detail here because it is widely available for any person with half a brain to read. Your claim is equivalent to saying the Earth is flat and because none of us on these forums are providing evidence to the contrary, it must be flat. When in fact the Earth is round, and because that is so extremely obvious to any individual with even the slightest bit of intelligence, or any stupid individual who chooses to take the time to actually read the evidence supporting that claim, there is simply no need to argue about the widely accepted fact.
So it is easier to stand behind facts you can't prove? I went to college, read the books, I saw the museums, and unlike you, who mindlessly spoonfed the information in, I challenged it. And what I see and continue to see is major flaws.
So now you say I am dumb because I do not believe in the blind faith of evolution, like you. Sad... I ask you to prove it and you can't.
And if was widely accepted, why do scientists and evolutionists say otherwise? That is contradictory to what you have said. Show me the facts... now you are just running away and insulting me on your way out. Is that what you normally do when proven wrong?