Thread: Objections to Evolution. Any Alternative Hipothesis Exist?

Hi

Of course Creationism isn't a valid alternative hipothesis because it doesn't explain how species appeared over the planet. But controversy exist on the fossil record completeness Objections to evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and on the study of the evolution of human languages (I'm a neofit, was read it in a Watchtower's book).

Is the biologic evolution an incontrovertible fact? If not, biologists consider any other alternative hipothesis?

Originally Posted by bezoar

But controversy exist on the fossil record completeness Objections to evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,

If you read the full wiki article, you will see that the article lists the clear rebuttals to the objections, as well.

The reason for controversy or objection is simply because some people are distressed that it contradicts their belief system.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

The reason for controversy or objection is simply because some people are distressed that it contradicts their belief system.

This is what i call poverty of mind. However, there isn't actually any fossil support for the evolutionary tree.

Stephen Jay Gould, the Harvard paleontologist you may have seen on PBS, points out that the so-called "evolutionary trees" that you see in high school textbooks are not trees at all; the connections between the various points are imaginary. All you have, according to Gould, are a lot of isolated points with huge gaps between them — the connections are imaginary. There are no intermediate fossils between the points — there is no scientific basis for connecting the dots.
What you see in the fossil record is a lot of huge gaps between families of organisms, without any sign of the intermediate forms which Darwin said you'd have to find if one species was developing into another. Why there is not known one case of a complete 'evolutionary tree' al least?


Stephen Sample says the “null hypothesis” is such because the old experiments that attempted to produce “building blocks” of amino acids failed to do so. In addition later experiments that produced other precursor chemicals, such as DNA and RNA, required very specific conditions in a lab, and aren’t… necessarily reflective of what the early Earth was like. Therefore, he said, the odds of making life from non-life seem too small for a naturalistic hypothesis to work.

He adds it isn’t stealth creationism – the intelligent agency might just as well be aliens. But he emphasizes that he wants students to learn to think critically, and that unlike the physical sciences, there aren’t any experiments you can do to demonstrate evolutionary theory.

Originally Posted by bezoar

This is what i call poverty of mind. However, there isn't actually any fossil support for the evolutionary tree.

And this is what I call lying flat out.

And I don't much see the point in doing so... Why lie when you fully are aware that all people need to do is look up the actuality?

Originally Posted by bezoar

Stephen Jay Gould, the Harvard paleontologist you may have seen on PBS, points out that the so-called "evolutionary trees" that you see in high school textbooks are not trees at all; the connections between the various points are imaginary. All you have, according to Gould, are a lot of isolated points with huge gaps between them — the connections are imaginary. There are no intermediate fossils between the points — there is no scientific basis for connecting the dots.
What you see in the fossil record is a lot of huge gaps between families of organisms, without any sign of the intermediate forms which Darwin said you'd have to find if one species was developing into another. Why there is not known one case of a complete 'evolutionary tree' al least?

This entire paragraph is nothing but wishful thinking. There are a great many fossils in family lines but once a Believer sees a gap of any kind, they declare victory.
For example you might see;
Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years

So, if there is ANY gap in that clear line, a creationist will shut their eyes and stamp their feet and declare "Gaps! See?! It is not PROVEN!"

I swear, sometimes you can see them foam at the mouth a little bit.

It's really very pathetic, to be honest...

Originally Posted by bezoar

Stephen Sample says the “null hypothesis” is such because the old experiments that attempted to produce “building blocks” of amino acids failed to do so.

Well, Stephen is wrong, isn't he?
Miller
A Science Odyssey: People and Discoveries: Amino acids are created in laboratory
"Lost" Miller-Urey experiment created more of life's building blocks: IU News Room: Indiana University

Originally Posted by bezoar

In addition later experiments that produced other precursor chemicals, such as DNA and RNA, required very specific conditions in a lab, and aren’t… necessarily reflective of what the early Earth was like. Therefore, he said, the odds of making life from non-life seem too small for a naturalistic hypothesis to work.

DNA has never been created from scratch in the lab, so the guy doesn't even keep his facts straight, much less keep the lies straight.
In fact, he's lying about the conditions, based on his claim that we do not know the early conditions.
The inaccuracy here is that we can extrapolate the most probable early conditions. Scientists then subjected the extrapolated data to the right mixture and conditions and, sure enough, had amino acids as a result.
In fact... amino acids aren't that difficult... They've even been made in other conditions:
NASA - NASA Scientists Create Amino Acids in Deep-Space-Like Environment

You sir, do too much lip service and no research of your own. A real scientist researches and studies, not spouts.

Why there is not known any specie's record showing an intact sequence of part of its 'evolutionary tree' al least?


Is it possible to conceive an alternative hipothesis? Nothing comes to my mind but this pathetic idea: several artificial meteorite collissions which spread lab microorganisms and chemicals. The necesary ingredients prepared by an alien civilization. Or part natural evolution, part artificial.

Originally Posted by bezoar

Why there is not known any specie's record showing an intact sequence of part of its 'evolutionary tree' al least?

There are. Claiming otherwise is just lying. I showed you a clear example above.
Unless you're trying to claim that I need to show you a fossil of something that is half bird and half turtle. No one can because that's a cop out. That is not how speciation works and it's a Red Herring employed by ID'ists and Creationists.

Originally Posted by bezoar

Is it possible to conceive an alternative hipothesis? Nothing comes to my mind but this pathetic idea: several artificial meteorite collissions which spread lab microorganisms and chemicals. The necesary ingredients prepared by an alien civilization. Or part natural evolution, part artificial.

Look into Panspermia.

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Originally Posted by Neverfly

DNA has never been created from scratch in the lab, so the guy doesn't even keep his facts straight, much less keep the lies straight.
In fact, he's lying about the conditions, based on his claim that we do not know the early conditions.
The inaccuracy here is that we can extrapolate the most probable early conditions. Scientists then subjected the extrapolated data to the right mixture and conditions and, sure enough, had amino acids as a result.
In fact... amino acids aren't that difficult... They've even been made in other conditions.

You sir, do too much lip service and no research of your own. A real scientist researches and studies, not spouts.

I'm sorry. I never had interest in study the evolution because was afraid of find nothing but writings of christians fundamentalists.

You claims darwinian evolution is a fact, so why all christian religions are still in the paleolithic age?

In The Descent of Man, Darwin said the origin of life perhaps will be an unsolvable mystery forever. But you consider it is a solved question. In The Variety of Scientific Experience, Carl Sagan said this is not clear if how many 'earths' will generate life, and how many hominid species of them will generate intelligent beings. You seems to know the first answer,... but how much time is necesary for our chimps to become 'humans'? Can we turn them humans in a lab?

Originally Posted by bezoar

I'm sorry. I never had interest in study the evolution because was afraid of find nothing but writings of christians fundamentalists.

What?

Originally Posted by bezoar

You claims darwinian evolution is a fact, so why all christian religions are still in the paleolithic age?

Because they reject evidence that contradicts their strong belief, no matter how compelling the evidence is.

Originally Posted by bezoar

In The Descent of Man, Darwin said the origin of life perhaps will be an unsolvable mystery forever. But you consider it is a solved question.

There is a difference between Evolution and Origin; The origin appears to be a case of emergence. But I do not know whether the hypothesis of the Origin of life on Earth is fully accurate.
Evolution, however, is very, very accurate.

Originally Posted by bezoar

In The Variety of Scientific Experience, Carl Sagan said this is not clear if how many 'earths' will generate life, and how many hominid species of them will generate intelligent beings. You seems to know the first answer,... but how much time is necesary for our chimps to become 'humans'? Can we turn them humans in a lab?

I do not know if chimps can become intelligent. Evolution is not a progress- it is simply that which survives. If intelligence survives, it lives. If a lack of intelligence is favored by the existing conditions, then intelligence will go extinct and less intelligent animals will survive.
I do not know how many planets have life.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

There are a great many fossils in family lines.
For example you might see;
Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years
So, if there is ANY gap in that clear line, a creationist will shut their eyes and stamp their feet and declare "Gaps! See?! It is not PROVEN!"

In that poor line,
I that link appears 5 photographs not at full-scale, this is what you call solid evidence? Why not any clear line of intermediate forms between fish and reptils, or reptils and mammals?, etc

Originally Posted by bezoar

In that poor line,
I that link appears 5 photographs not at full-scale, this is what you call solid evidence? Why not any clear line of intermediate forms between fish and reptils, or reptils and mammals?, etc

Idiot...

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Unless you're trying to claim that I need to show you a fossil of something that is half bird and half turtle. No one can because that's a cop out. That is not how speciation works and it's a Red Herring employed by ID'ists and Creationists.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by bezoar

In that poor line,
I that link appears 5 photographs not at full-scale, this is what you call solid evidence? Why not any clear line of intermediate forms between fish and reptils, or reptils and mammals?, etc

Idiot...

Does anybody could explain me why 5 photographs of horses couldn't be 5 different extinct races of horses?

I expected a line of 200 photographs, at least. Specially of indestructible dinossaur fossils. But it is ok. Evidence of evolution of archaic scriptures?
I did anything wrong? I can put in google: evolution of archaic scriptures, and in the 99.9% of webpages not dating evidence will appear. And you call me idiot.

Originally Posted by bezoar

Does anybody could explain me why 5 photographs of horses couldn't be 5 different extinct races of horses?

The horses were just a quick example. I certainly cannot be expected to teach you all of paleontology on a net forum thread.
Because the traits of the details in the bones, the times they existed and the structure strongly supports linear evolution.
In order to be different species, you would have to claim that for some reason, extremely similar species lived at different times, showing clear changes that match where the last left off and the next species picks up- and if that wasn't difficult enough to explain some other way (Aside from Goddidit) you must do so for ALL of the extensive fossils, each and every one that shows the same pattern.
Again, that page on horses was a small and brief example.

Originally Posted by bezoar

I expected a line of 200 photographs, at least.

Well, google it up, then.

Originally Posted by bezoar

Specially of indestructible dinossaur fossils.

Indestructable- LMAO Of course, make your requirements absurd and then later claim they could not be mete.
Gotcha.

Originally Posted by bezoar

Evidence of evolution of archaic scriptures?

What? What are you talking about?

Originally Posted by bezoar

I did anything wrong? I can put in google: evolution of archaic scriptures, and in the 99.9% of webpages not dating evidence will appear. And you call me idiot.

And it appears you have earned it well.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by bezoar

In that poor line,
I that link appears 5 photographs not at full-scale, this is what you call solid evidence?

Idiot..

Instead of 'idiot' i prefer to be called 'christian believer'

I actually reading about a fossil that was hypothesized to half bird/repitlian DNA. I'm not sure how verified that became, but you might look into it. I recall it having a really, really, hard to memorize name. I forgot it for some reason.

Originally Posted by bezoar

Instead of 'idiot' i prefer to be called 'christian believer'

I'm sure you have a preference; But when you choose to lie and distort reality just to desperately cling to your beliefs, you deserve to be called far worse than just "idiot."
Because you're willing to lie to people just to promote something you egotistically cannot stand to let go of- like a child too afraid to let go of Santa Clause.
In so doing, you seek to harm education, learning, scientific progress and hold all of humanity back, if you could, just to satisfy your juvenile need for your beliefs.
And that makes you something worse than an idiot...

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by bezoar

Evidence of evolution of archaic scriptures?

What? What are you talking about?

What Jehova's Whitnesses claim: sumerian, egyptian scriptures are complex and complete as the comtemporary

Why i not e-search? 'cause could spend 40 hours to find any decent article. And if a Jehova's Whitness wins the presidency of the US instead of a Mormon, more & more e-pages could claim: we evolutionists respect the perspective of our president.

Originally Posted by bezoar

What Jehova's Whitnesses claim: sumerian, egyptian scriptures are complex and complete as the comtemporary

Why i not e-search? 'cause could spend 40 hours to find any decent article. And if a Jehova's Whitness wins the presidency of the US instead of a Mormon, more & more e-pages could claim: we evolutionists respect the perspective of our president.

What ARE You going on about? More religious mumbo jumbo?
Look. you got called that for trying to say I must provide evidence for something I never claimed. Evolution does NOT (get it? NOT) say that a fish turned into a dog. There are no fossils of half dog/half fish creatures. The changes are small and slow and that is why it takes Millions Of Years.
Which matches the physical fossil record.
I pointed out the absurdity of that Red Herring and then... You went and tried to play it!
How goofy is that?
Now you're trying to refer to mythology?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by bezoar

Instead of 'idiot' i prefer to be called 'christian believer'

I'm sure you have a preference; But when you choose to lie and distort reality just to desperately cling to your beliefs, you deserve to be called far worse than just "idiot."
Because you're willing to lie to people just to promote something you egotistically cannot stand to let go of- like a child too afraid to let go of Santa Clause.
In so doing, you seek to harm education, learning, scientific progress and hold all of humanity back, if you could, just to satisfy your juvenile need for your beliefs.
And that makes you something worse than an idiot...

No. This is not me. I'm close to atheism, cosmicism and A. Camus vision. This is the root of my skepticism. Really hate childish theists.

Originally Posted by bezoar

Really hate childish theists.

Doing a pretty good imitation of it when you ask for evidence for absurdities that were never made as a Red Herring.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Look. you got called that for trying to say I must provide evidence for something I never claimed. Evolution does NOT (get it? NOT) say that a fish turned into a dog. There are no fossils of half dog/half fish creatures. The changes are small and slow and that is why it takes Millions Of Years.
Which matches the physical fossil record.

Could you recommend me a profuse e-article about the physical fossil record, please? I know some american schools tried to win a trial to prohibite the teaching of the biologic evolution. That level of blind fanatism scared me a lot.

Now you're trying to refer to mythology

The Watchtower Society claim ancient idioms (sumerian, egyptian...) are complex and complete as our modern idioms. Of course i know they are lying, coud you recommend me any link about the evolution of idioms?

I actually already linked one of the BEST resources freely on the web.
Talk Origins. It is very extensive, covers a lot of evidence and explains many things the common person finds mysterious, like Mitochondria Eve, how it works, the fossil record, what claims people make and how those claims lack merit and so on.
Now, that said... to really get the full brunt of knowledge, University Attendance would be nice.

But without the basic studies, much less the advanced studies, do not assume so much.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

Bezoer, what objections do YOU have to the sources already provided by neverfly?

Excellent link.

Perhaps this may also be relevant.
Mendelian inheritance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have also been fascinated with the "fused chromosome, which accounts for the difference in chromosome count between humans and other primates.
Chromosome fusion

+ don't forget Evowiki

I thought this was a nice little demonstration on evolution by a professor of evolutionary biology to a small group of creationists.

The professor laid out on a table a collection of human like skulls he dug up with varying carbon dating. He then asked one of the creationist to place these skulls in the order of similarity/resemblance, using sight alone.

The creationist did a very good job and correctly placed the skulls in the exact same chronological order as the carbon dating had done by the age of the skulls. All skulls were dug up from the same valley!

If interested, the 4 min demonstration can be seen here (just jump to 8 min and 40 sec !)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llZbKdSOT6w

I find religious Brits coming to America to learn about evolution to be kind of funny. Our positions seem so typically reversed in matters of faith and science.

Look in the pseudo-science/trash sections, there's plenty of them there.......

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Bezoer, what objections do YOU have to the sources already provided by neverfly?

I'm not a biologist, but want to learn how to interpret the fossil evidence of evolution, and Neverfly said: But without the basic studies, much less the advanced studies, do not assume so much.

Probably the information is too technical, and common persons (idiots believers and neofits like me...) will never catch the concept.
But you all don't see you have a mission here, to help to eradicate religious fundamentalism because it is like a silent cancer that undermines the basis of society.


You find it funny but read what this 'eminent cyborg' teach about evolution: Christoph Maria Michael Hugo Damian Peter Adalbert (Graf von) Schönborn, O.P. (born 22 January 1945), is a Bohemian-born Austrian Dominican friar and theologian, who is a cardinal of the Catholic Church. He serves as the Archbishop of Vienna and President of the Austrian Bishops' Conference.

Christoph Schönborn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone who thinks that there is "overwhelming evidence for design in biology" is only fooling themselves.
They're arguing from a priori assumptions.

Originally Posted by bezoar

You find it funny but read what this 'eminent cyborg' teach about evolution

As he disagrees with his own Pope, does that make him a heretic who should be burned at the stake...

Originally Posted by bezoar

Probably the information is too technical, and common persons (idiots believers and neofits like me...) will never catch the concept.

Nonsense. You can understand it just fine; the problem is that you don't want to.
Now, it is true that there is a lot to learn, but you're perfectly capable of doing the learning. All that it means when it is pointed out that there is a lot to learn is that you shouldn't assume you can sit back and figure out whatever you want without study.

Originally Posted by bezoar

But you all don't see you have a mission here, to help to eradicate religious fundamentalism because it is like a silent cancer that undermines the basis of society.

I see it and I admit it and I've admitted it many times. I even called you out for it just a few posts back- if you could, you would hold back all of society and progress just to cling to your beliefs.

The Eminent Christoph Schonborn claims: Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might (MIGHT. Maybe he went to a precarious school) be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense – an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection – is not (He is denying natural selection!!!What kind of monster could say something like that). Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.

please, give him some lessons FOR FREE

Originally Posted by bezoar

but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense

(Facepalm)

Originally Posted by bezoar

Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.

Talk about mincing words...
The Lie: That there is any evidence for design in biology.
The follow up to the lie: Claiming that a model that lacks the necessity of an unfalsifiable, unprovable, unobservable creator/deity must be ideology. How utterly absurd. He cannot even back up his lying very intelligently.

Originally Posted by bezoar

The Eminent Christoph Schonborn claims: Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might (MIGHT. Maybe he went to a precarious school) be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense – an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection – is not (He is denying natural selection!!!What kind of monster could say something like that). Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.

please, give him some lessons FOR FREE

Why do you assume people havent tried to correct his assertions, learning is a two way street and if he is not receptive to it then he will not hear it.

Also, STOP with the inflammatory rhetoric re:"what kind of monster..." etc. this is a science forum, not a village mob

Originally Posted by Neverfly

You can understand it just fine; the problem is that you don't want to.
Now, it is true that there is a lot to learn, but you're perfectly capable of doing the learning. All that it means when it is pointed out that there is a lot to learn is that you shouldn't assume out for it just a few posts back- if you could, you would hold back all of society and progress just to cling to your beliefs.

Thanks for the info.
Ok. I have my tablet here, which articles from Talk Origins i must download to start?
I'm absolutely skeptic, so when many pages passes without any solid evidence i tend to bore. Indeed i doubt almost all i read, always suspect intentional or unintentional fraud. C'mon have compassion i suffered trauma with mormon dogmas as the dogma of a God composed by flesh and floating in the space...

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by bezoar

Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.

Talk about mincing words...
The Lie: That there is any evidence for design in biology.
The follow up to the lie: Claiming that a model that lacks the necessity of an unfalsifiable, unprovable, unobservable creator/deity must be ideology. How utterly absurd. He cannot even back up his lying very intelligently.

A model that requires a God is the biggest stupidity i can conceive. But the intervetion of any sort of cartesian Evil Demon seems not absolutely hare-brained. Maybe the error of evolutionists is they can conceive another alternative hipothesis.

Carl Sagan conceived the possibility of a non-omnibenevolent God, or a non-omnipresent God, which explain the horror of the evolution of creatures like the canibal dinossaurs, the human diseases, etc etc

Originally Posted by bezoar

Ok. I have my tablet here, which articles from Talk Origins i must download to start?

To be blunt... I'd start at the home page and link to whatever interests you the most. If you are anything like me, (I can't look up a word in the dictionary without getting stuck reading entries for an hour) you will navigate all over the site.
You aren't going to read a page and then be convinced of an idea. You must go through a lot of material and really examine the merit of all of the claims. And that takes time and it takes a lot of reading.
Anyplace, at that point, is as good a place to start as anywhere else. Because the ultimate goal is for you to cover all of the material anyway.
The way the site is laid out, it tends to refer to relevant information.
I could give an outline of the best basics to start with and what more advanced concepts to look at once you know the basics- but the thing is that you won't listen. You will go to where your strongest interests are, anyway.

Originally Posted by bezoar

C'mon have compassion

You would be surprised...

Originally Posted by bezoar

But the intervetion of any sort of cartesian Evil Demon seems not absolutely hare-brained.

What?

Originally Posted by bezoar

Maybe the error of evolutionists is they can conceive another alternative hipothesis.

What is the error?

Originally Posted by bezoar

Carl Sagan conceived the possibility of a non-omnibenevolent God, or a non-omnipresent God, which explain the horror of the evolution of creatures like the canibal dinossaurs, the human diseases, etc etc

Sagan was very similar in his views to my views.
He was an atheist that was opposed to religious domination over rational thought and evidence.
He was more politically correct when younger, but as he got older, he became more and more militant about standing against religious influence and creationists tactics of trying to create confusion in readers by lying in order to appear scientific or to make it look as though scientific methods were just another opinion equivalent to religion.

Originally Posted by bezoar

I'm absolutely skeptic, so when many pages passes without any solid evidence i tend to bore.

A perfect example of the burger culture.
What do you call "solid evidence"?
I suspect you're looking for (or expecting) some single statement that leaps out at you and "proves" beyond doubt that evolution is true.
It doesn't work like that (in fact science doesn't work like that).
It's the accumulation of "little bits" that add up to "solid evidence".

YOU have to put some work into it.
(Otherwise you might as well fall back on faith ¹).

1 Whether that's faith in religion or faith in science is up to you.

I find the homology of many forms of life too evident to ignore — overall composition, systems, organs, chemical composition, chemical reactions, biochemistry, genes, DNA, ... Diabetic humans use pig insulin, bovine hemoglobin can carry oxygen in human bloodtreams, etc. Even primitive prehistoric human butchers must have realized a multitude of internal similarities among vastly different animals. Even plants and animals have DNA composed of the same four nucleotides. For those who get their panties in a knot over being "related" to monkeys, they must have a pure conniption fit about being related to the grass growing in their lawns or, heaven forbid, the mold growing under their bathroom sinks.

If some divine being (or intelligent designer) supposedly created humans from scratch (literally), much of the recipe must have been the same/similar/borrowed from other animals and even plants. So, to think of humans as an entirely unique creation is inconsistent with our very complete and irrefutable biological and botanical knowledge — without any consideration of evolution.

To me, this alone points to evolution without having to prove every branch or twig or interconnection or mechanism in the tree of life.

Originally Posted by bezoar

Is the biologic evolution an incontrovertible fact?

There is no such thing as an "incontrovertible fact" in science.

Even the law of the gravity is still a "theory". It could turn out that evil demons were capriciously pulling us down toward the Earth the whole time. They just chose to obey Newton's equations for fun.

If not, biologists consider any other alternative hipothesis?

No other theory rises to the same level of probability.

If you want to move from religion to science, you have to give up on the concept of "certainty" or "knowledge" and replace it with "probability" and "evidence".

Science is about betting with the odds instead of against them. Religion is about faith . It's about believing something as long as there is even a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000% chance it *might* be true. For some it's about fear of hell and Pascal's Wager. For other's it's more about hope.

Science doesn't care about hope or fear, only evidence.

Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by bezoar

Is the biologic evolution an incontrovertible fact?

I would say that evolution is a fact (we see it happening all around us) but there are theories of evolution which attempt to explain it.

This is similar to gravity (a fact) and the various theories of gravity (Newtonian, relativity, MOND, etc)

Originally Posted by kojax

0.0000000000000000000000000000000% chance it *might* be true.

You do know that's still a 0% chance right?

I think creation and confession that we don't know how life begins by any other means is the only possible statement that can be true.

Originally Posted by Some

I think creation and confession that we don't know how life begins by any other means is the only possible statement that can be true.

Huh?
What do you mean by "creation"?

there aren’t any experiments you can do to demonstrate evolutionary theory.

You, I and everyone else here is involved in one very obvious experiment. How else do you think bacteria are becoming resistant to antibiotics?

Trial and error, survival of the fittest. In the antibiotic-enhanced environment we provide - the "fittest" bacteria survive so that the population eventually becomes capable of surviving, even thriving, in the presence of antibiotics.

If you want easily absorbed material about evolution, try the "Made Easy" series from potholer54. This is the first in the series. 1 - History of Our Universe Part 1 (for schools) - YouTube Note that he spends a lot of effort on emphasising the age of the universe, so even though his focus is mainly evolution, he spends plenty of time on general astronomy and cosmology.)

(He calls it "Made Easy" but it's really a response to calls from teachers saying that the original videos were terrific but they couldn't use them in schools because of the bad language - which is often very funny, but clearly unsuitable for classroom use. So he remade them without the blasphemy, swearing, insults or profanity. )

Originally Posted by bezoar

there aren’t any experiments you can do to demonstrate evolutionary theory.[/COLOR][/B]

That just isn't true. There is loads of experimental work that is done in evolutionary biology.

Originally Posted by adelady

there aren’t any experiments you can do to demonstrate evolutionary theory.

You, I and everyone else here is involved in one very obvious experiment. How else do you think bacteria are becoming resistant to antibiotics?

- Is Bacterial Resistance an Example of Evolutionary Change?

Originally Posted by Some

- Is Bacterial Resistance an Example of Evolutionary Change?

Um, what, exactly, is a link to a crank site supposed to show?
A link to an article written by a biased loon with an avowed agenda.

17 EVIDENCES AGAINST EVOLUTION

Originally Posted by EndlessEndeavor

17 EVIDENCES AGAINST EVOLUTION

And those are evidence against evolution how?

Originally Posted by EndlessEndeavor

17 EVIDENCES AGAINST EVOLUTION

Again, a very poor WOT rating.

What's with the low trust ratings on so many links being posted, lately?

And again- yet, another example of how believers will lie and distort in order to desperately cling to their faith. It's very sad.

They're not evidences at all, they're just funny, I thought I would share them with the class.

Should have clarified, though. I just thought the nature of the article was funny enough to dispute itself.

Originally Posted by Ascended

Originally Posted by kojax

0.0000000000000000000000000000000% chance it *might* be true.

You do know that's still a 0% chance right?

Lol. Dam I forgot the 1 at the end.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Some

- Is Bacterial Resistance an Example of Evolutionary Change?

Um, what, exactly, is a link to a crank site supposed to show?
A link to an article written by a biased loon with an avowed agenda.

I think a lot of religious people think that the reason scientists don't listen to them is just because they're not making an articulate enough argument. So they post rants by articulate people.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. A rant is a rant. The words themselves don't matter. Only what evidence is being presented matters.

Also some religious people only know how to use deductive logic. Inductive reasoning falls outside their education. However, science is overwhelmingly inductive. If a person doesn't understand the type of logic that is being used, then it doesn't look like evidence to them. It just looks like fluff, which might make a person think they should answer fluff with fluff.

Originally Posted by EndlessEndeavor

Should have clarified, though.

Yeeeahhh... You'll learn to do that as often as possible...

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Some

- Is Bacterial Resistance an Example of Evolutionary Change?

Um, what, exactly, is a link to a crank site supposed to show?
A link to an article written by a biased loon with an avowed agenda.

This is science forum. An ad hominem is an argument which attacks people holding a contrary view, rather than attacking specific points regarding their view.

Perhaps this may contribute.

Any argument for "irreducible complexity" and therefore needing a designer has been debunked, several times and in court of law.

The Collapse of Intelligent Design - Kenneth R. Miller Lecture - YouTube

This may work better

Kenneth Miller - Evolution vs. Intelligent Design FULL - YouTube

Originally Posted by Some

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Some

- Is Bacterial Resistance an Example of Evolutionary Change?

Um, what, exactly, is a link to a crank site supposed to show?
A link to an article written by a biased loon with an avowed agenda.

This is science forum. An ad hominem is an argument which attacks people holding a contrary view, rather than attacking specific points regarding their view.

Do you really need someone else to go through that and point out the misrepresentations and errors? It might be good practice for you to do it. I don't have time to go through it in detail but a quick skim suggests it should be quite easy to debunk (even for someone who is not an expert in biology or evolution).

Originally Posted by Some

This is science forum. An ad hominem is an argument which attacks people holding a contrary view, rather than attacking specific points regarding their view.

Except that it's not an ad hom.
Hard luck.

Originally Posted by EndlessEndeavor

17 EVIDENCES AGAINST EVOLUTION

A sad list of pseudoscience and logical fallacies.

--
There hasn't been any ideas approaching a hypothesis to compete with evolution for nearly a century.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by EndlessEndeavor

17 EVIDENCES AGAINST EVOLUTION

A sad list of pseudoscience and logical fallacies.

--
There hasn't been any ideas approaching a hypothesis to compete with evolution for nearly a century.

I think n 7 is true.

Vestigial organs prove loss, not evolutionary progression. Evolution theory requires new organs forming for useful purposes, not "old ones" dying out.

Huh?

How many times is the point made that Evolution is not a progressive force?
It is only a matter of what survives in its environment.

And it's amazing how often cranks use the word "proves" as if they hope to psychologically lead the reader to the conclusion they wish them to see.

"If I look upward, I can see the Moon and this Proves that the Earth is flat!"

That argument about "vestigial organs" is actually a good demonstration of faulty thinking about evolution.

That being the presumption that everything has been positively "selected". Things change randomly but they're only retained if they enhance an organism's reproductive success - is just not true. There are heaps and heaps of variations in all organisms, including us, and they are selected neither for nor against if they have no effect on survival in the prevailing environment. Should the environment change, some apparently neutral variations among members of a species may die out or come to dominate if they prove helpful or harmful in the new circumstances.

Though I'm hard put to imagine what reproductive/survival function variations in human eye colour might have in any changed environment.

As for ad hominem arguments. Arguments are only ad hominem if they have the form "You're nasty/stupid/too young/too old, therefore what you say is wrong / worthless / should be ignored."
If someone says "That's not true. Here's the disproof / verified facts. If you don't accept that, you're stupid." That's an insult, not an argument ad hominem.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by bezoar

Ok. I have my tablet here, which articles from Talk Origins i must download to start?

To be blunt... I'd start at the home page and link to whatever interests you the most. If you are anything like me, (I can't look up a word in the dictionary without getting stuck reading entries for an hour) you will navigate all over the site.
You aren't going to read a page and then be convinced of an idea. You must go through a lot of material and really examine the merit of all of the claims. And that takes time and it takes a lot of reading.
Anyplace, at that point, is as good a place to start as anywhere else. Because the ultimate goal is for you to cover all of the material anyway.
The way the site is laid out, it tends to refer to relevant information.
I could give an outline of the best basics to start with and what more advanced concepts to look at once you know the basics- but the thing is that you won't listen. You will go to where your strongest interests are, anyway.

Why today don't exist fish with 'incipient' legs which look like a fish-reptile transition?
Why there aren't hairy reptiles that look like a reptile-mammal transition?

Why all transition states no longer exist?
Can you estimate when the fish of Palm Beach will have become reptiles?

If you can't properly answer these questions, and other common sense questions, i see no reason to spend lot of time reading exquisite deductions supported on weaky evidence.
Evidence is the only i need to read. It talks by itself...

I know physical changes takes millions of years to occur, but transicions are a continuous process, and i doubt a biologist could say: i estimate that specimen will develop microscopic legs the next year, due to microevolution; and i'll publish the photographs in a magazine...

Originally Posted by bezoar

Why today don't exist fish with 'incipient' legs which look like a fish-reptile transition?
Why there aren't hairy reptiles that look like a reptile-mammal transition?

Why all transition states no longer exist?
Can you estimate when the fish of Palm Beach will have become reptiles?

If you can't properly answer these questions, and other common sense questions, i see no reason to spend lot of time reading exquisite deductions supported on weaky evidence.
Evidence is the only i need to read. It talks by itself...

Your entire post is a lie, intended to direct attention away from your pathetically weak understanding of evolution and away from the actual physical evidence and follow the Red Herring of your invented imaginings.

You spew this lie totally oblivious to the basic problem of your assertions being directly contradicted by the physical evidence. You assume there are no transitional fossils of any kind...

You assume this because you are a believer. You believe and therefor, have no need to research the topic before you start talking.

Let's Research, a bit - Oldest to more recent; the family's led to and the diversification of species:
Ichthyostega - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hynerpeton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Whatcheeriidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Crassigyrinus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Temnospondyli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lepospondyli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lysorophia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Microsauria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lissamphibia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mastodonsauroidea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Plagiosauridae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Brachyopidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Microbrachis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Panderichthys - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ruh Roh
Tetrapodomorpha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kenichthys - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kenichthys has a primitive choana, an opening on the palate that connects the nasal cavity and mouth, which would become an important adaptation for terrestrial life in later tetrapodomorphs.

Gogonasus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Diadectes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You have no idea. Not a single clue. So you invent some "Common Sense" assumptions that try to compress the actual evolution of many animalss that took place over millions of years, into a few short generations to appease your ignorant misconceptions. Your red herring, incidentally, ignores the finding of feathers on primitive dinosauria because that contradicts your religiosity.

People like you, who are willing to ignore, cover up and deny hard evidence and who are willing to lie in a desperate attempt to validate your beliefs are a true threat to learning, education and progress everywhere.

Continuing on...:
Tetraceratops - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pelycosaur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kannemeyeriiformes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cynodont - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dicynodont - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tritylodontidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evolution of mammals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Procynosuchus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Eutheria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Metatheria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Selective Factors Associated with the Origin of Fur and Feathers

Transformation and diversification in early mammal evolution : Abstract : Nature

Natural Selection and not progressive induced change:
JSTOR:article

We can keep this up, literally filling up hundreds of pages in this thread of nothing else except for links to fossils, peer reviewed research of them, experimental data up to and including microbial and bacterial evolution and the soft tissue problem.
Literally, hundreds of pages on the stuff that you do not know and do not want to know.
All of the stuff you ignore in order to present your own desires instead of doing as Kepler had done and letting go of belief and accepting the evidence.

You do not give a damn about reality. The only thing you care about is selfishly validating your primitive superstitious beliefs.

Originally Posted by adelady

That argument about "vestigial organs" is actually a good demonstration of faulty thinking about evolution.

That being the presumption that everything has been positively "selected". Things change randomly but they're only retained if they enhance an organism's reproductive success - is just not true. There are heaps and heaps of variations in all organisms, including us, and they are selected neither for nor against if they have no effect on survival in the prevailing environment. Should the environment change, some apparently neutral variations among members of a species may die out or come to dominate if they prove helpful or harmful in the new circumstances.

Though I'm hard put to imagine what reproductive/survival function variations in human eye colour might have in any changed environment.

As for ad hominem arguments. Arguments are only ad hominem if they have the form "You're nasty/stupid/too young/too old, therefore what you say is wrong / worthless / should be ignored."
If someone says "That's not true. Here's the disproof / verified facts. If you don't accept that, you're stupid." That's an insult, not an argument ad hominem.

Appeal to ignorance ?!

Originally Posted by Some

Originally Posted by adelady

That argument about "vestigial organs" is actually a good demonstration of faulty thinking about evolution.

That being the presumption that everything has been positively "selected". Things change randomly but they're only retained if they enhance an organism's reproductive success - is just not true. There are heaps and heaps of variations in all organisms, including us, and they are selected neither for nor against if they have no effect on survival in the prevailing environment. Should the environment change, some apparently neutral variations among members of a species may die out or come to dominate if they prove helpful or harmful in the new circumstances.

Though I'm hard put to imagine what reproductive/survival function variations in human eye colour might have in any changed environment.

As for ad hominem arguments. Arguments are only ad hominem if they have the form "You're nasty/stupid/too young/too old, therefore what you say is wrong / worthless / should be ignored."
If someone says "That's not true. Here's the disproof / verified facts. If you don't accept that, you're stupid." That's an insult, not an argument ad hominem.

Appeal to ignorance ?!

Any more response to adeladys post?

Originally Posted by bezoar

I know physical changes takes millions of years to occur, but transicions are a continuous process, and i doubt a biologist could say: i estimate that specimen will develop microscopic legs the next year, due to microevolution; and i'll publish the photographs in a magazine...

Some changes happen much more rapidly due to extraordinary environmental pressure, such as documented in isolated or invasive species. A good example is the Podarcis sicula who not only changed behavioraly, but had different head skeletal structure and new organs to help digest plants in only 30 years. Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource

Also the strength of science is not necessarily its predictive ability, but its consistency with observations.

--

I think n 7 is true.

Which part. The problem about "progressive," which is a complete misnomer, has been pointed out by others.

Originally Posted by bezoar

I know physical changes takes millions of years to occur, but transicions are a continuous process, and i doubt a biologist could say: i estimate that specimen will develop microscopic legs the next year, due to microevolution; and i'll publish the photographs in a magazine...

Take a look at the mud skipper and the Queensland lung fish, which are close to the transition state you are talking about. We already have been studying them for a century or so.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by bezoar

I know physical changes takes millions of years to occur, but transicions are a continuous process, and i doubt a biologist could say: i estimate that specimen will develop microscopic legs the next year, due to microevolution; and i'll publish the photographs in a magazine...

Some changes happen much more rapidly due to extraordinary environmental pressure, such as documented in isolated or invasive species. A good example is the Podarcis sicula who not only changed behavioraly, but had different head skeletal structure and new organs to help digest plants in only 30 years. Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource

Also the strength of science is not necessarily its predictive ability, but its consistency with observations.

--

I think n 7 is true.

Which part. The problem about "progressive," which is a complete misnomer, has been pointed out by others.

There was no control - during the 30 y anyone may carry any lizard from one island to the other & we didn't examine the genome of the original introduced species & It could be simply epigenetic regulatory mechanism. Good luck next time.

Originally Posted by Some

It could be simply epigenetic regulatory mechanism. Good luck next time.

Do you have any evidence in support of epigenetics?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Some changes happen much more rapidly due to extraordinary environmental pressure, such as documented in isolated or invasive species. A good example is the Podarcis sicula who not only changed behavioraly, but had different head skeletal structure and new organs to help digest plants in only 30 years.(wow!!) (Sir, with all respect, please enlight my neophytesness, prove these new organs are something more than a survival process of adaptation. Please describe in detail how the primitive enviromental pressure (s) generated all the forms we observe around us. With 'pressuresness' or less, darwinism teachs all species are changing toward superior, more complex beings. Please inaugurate a Museum of Transitional Living Species, i i will became #1 fan of it!).
Can scientist reproduce such 'enviromental pressures' in Lab in order to measure microevolutionary changes in macroscopic species?
Prove the lungfish is an transtitional specimen fish-reptile...
Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource

Also the strength of science is not necessarily its predictive ability, but its consistency with observations.

Please forgive me, I know not what I do
Please forgive me, I can't stop loving you
Don't deny me, this pain I'm going through
Please forgive me, if I need you like I do
Please believe me, every word I say is true
Please forgive me, I can't stop loving you

Uncle Fester

Originally Posted by Some

There was no control - during the 30 y anyone may carry any lizard from one island to the other & we didn't examine the genome of the original introduced species & It could be simply epigenetic regulatory mechanism. Good luck next time.

The original population is the control.

There were confirmed changes to DNA as part of the Phylogenetic analysis that occupied the morphological studies.
Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource

In addition epigenetic adaptability, the ability for genes to be expressed depending on the environmental change, is in itself an evolutionary adaption.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

You do not give a damn about reality. The only thing you care about is selfishly validating your primitive superstitious beliefs.

Remember, in the introduction i stated my first premise: Creationism is a senseless term 'cause explain absolutely nothing. Of which beliefs are you acussing me? You inundated my questions with controversial links, the only thing i expect is some incontrovertible evidence.

Sir, with all respect, please enlight my neophytesness, prove these new organs are something more than a survival process of adaptation.

Purge proof from your vocabulary. And your question is rather odd since evolution is mostly about survival processes to a specific environment through adaption of a species.

Please describe in detail how the primitive enviromental pressure (s) generated all the forms we observe around us. With 'pressuresness' or less, darwinism teachs all species are changing toward superior, more complex beings. Please inaugurate a Museum of Transitional Living Species, i i will became #1 fan of it!).

All I can recommend is you take a few biology courses, particularly one that cover the Phylogenetics of life. There is no such thing as "darwinism." Your statement about all species changing toward superior, more complex beings, is demonstratively wrong--the vast majority of species, even the thousands living in and on your own human body, have remained relatively simple. Complex lifeforms are a very tiny minority.

Lastly, if you cannot engage in a scientific discussion at a level appropriate for this hard science sub forum, nor ask good questions, then it's better that you don't contribute.

Along with proof, can we please get rid of expressions like "incontrovertible evidence".

There is such a thing for specific items/events, but it is not a standard for testing a scientific hypothesis.

Originally Posted by bezoar

Prove the lungfish is an transtitional specimen fish-reptile...

Show us how exactly the mudskippers and lungfish are NOT transitional forms.

Originally Posted by bezoar

Prove the lungfish is an transtitional specimen fish-reptile...

Wow... talk about denial... So all you have to do when shown the example you asked for is just keep denying that they are examples?

WE are transitional. Every species is transitional. The word "transitional" only applies after changes have taken place anyway. You seem to think there's an End Product.
No; it's just that over time, species undergo changes. Over the course of millions and millions of years, these changes can be quite dramatic.

You're either transitional or extinct.

Originally Posted by bezoar

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by bezoar

Ok. I have my tablet here, which articles from Talk Origins i must download to start?

To be blunt... I'd start at the home page and link to whatever interests you the most. If you are anything like me, (I can't look up a word in the dictionary without getting stuck reading entries for an hour) you will navigate all over the site.
You aren't going to read a page and then be convinced of an idea. You must go through a lot of material and really examine the merit of all of the claims. And that takes time and it takes a lot of reading.
Anyplace, at that point, is as good a place to start as anywhere else. Because the ultimate goal is for you to cover all of the material anyway.
The way the site is laid out, it tends to refer to relevant information.
I could give an outline of the best basics to start with and what more advanced concepts to look at once you know the basics- but the thing is that you won't listen. You will go to where your strongest interests are, anyway.

Why today don't exist fish with 'incipient' legs which look like a fish-reptile transition?

This is easy to explain. You could similarly ask, "Why don't they still make Model T automobiles?"

You have to remember that animals are part of their own environment. When there was no such thing as a better automobile, a Model T was a marketable automobile people wanted to buy. Why? Lack of competition by a better product.

It would be very hard to find someone willing to buy an automobile of a Model T's quality and performance today. Sure some collectors will buy original Model T's as antiques for their collections, but realistically if you want to sell new cars in today's market, they need to be up to current standards. Also animals need to be up to current standards if they want to compete in current environments. A half evolved wolf won't win against a fully evolved wolf.

The first fish to walk on land also had no competition. There was lots of food there that was going uneaten because none of the other fish had yet gained the ability to come out of the water and eat it. That fish would likely eat till his/her belly was full, then jump back in the water and mate. .... But after a while that fish had lots and lots of children. Then the food wasn't so plentiful because there were so many walking fish trying to eat it. After a while longer, some of the walking fish populations began to become better at land walking, and the original land walking fish were no longer able to compete.

So to answer the question: "Why don't land walking fish appear today?" The answer is that the conditions which motivated it to happen the first time are no longer present.

Why all transition states no longer exist?
.

Because none of the transitional states were as good as their (more specialized) successors.

Originally Posted by kojax

It would be very hard to find someone willing to buy an automobile of a Model T's quality and performance today. Sure some collectors will buy original Model T's as antiques for their collections, but realistically if you want to sell new cars in today's market, they need to be up to current standards. Also animals need to be up to current standards if they want to compete in current environments. A half evolved wolf won't win against a fully evolved wolf.

Over-all, this is well presented. But I have a nitpick- it is current environment that is a large factor, not the factor of whether it is a wolf of today or a wolf's ancestor. At the time, that environment was different, the surrounding prey and competition was different and the ancestor of the wolf, was not like a model T and an 2005 F-150.
It's more akin to an F-150 and a Ferrari.
Each has its traits that are suited to their needs, but either will outperform the other in its own element.

The ancestor of the wolf was as amazing as today's and it was robust, sleek and every bit the magnificent creature the wolf is. It was not like a primitive and underdeveloped version of an animal. It was suited to its environment better than today's wolf and today's wolf better suited to today's environment than the previous.