Top | Newest First | Oldest First
kajira · 31-35, F
Maybe the question is backwards. The natural null hypothesis is there is no evolution. So perhaps the better question is why do you believe humans evolved. It is simple to believe in the null hypothesis. Changing your belief to something else (such as evolution happened) should be done on the basis of evidence. What evidence have you seen for evolution? Or, is it simply something you read about in a book, or heard from people on TV. When you look at the topic critically, you find you are making a LOT of assumptions.
It seems odd to disparage someone because they do not accept your assumptions. (And Monster's comments, although phrased as "questions", are full of assumptions). Perhaps it is rooted in an elitist attitude that your books are better than another person's books.
Even so, A good place to start is to define what you mean by "evolution". The most general idea of evolution is simply "change". This in itself is a complex topic -- since there also seems to be plenty of evidence that many things are the same now as they were at the very beginning of time. But, perhaps you mean the changes driven by a law like "survival of the fittest". You can find evidence on both sides of this idea of evolution, and perhaps it turns out to be largely correct. but my personal belief is that it is not the best way to structure a law of nature. I suspect it is a manifestation of a more fundamental model of biological change caused by random mutations, driven by physical interactions at the molecular (or submolecular) level. But even these models run into difficulties when extended to large complex systems, such as organisms, groups of organisms, or interactions among groups of organisms. The roles of instinct and choice in these models are important, and actually not well understood by the researchers. (For example, consider what you would predict for the future evolution of humans. Is it really about maximizing survival rates of superior subgroups? Perhaps not.)
It seems odd to disparage someone because they do not accept your assumptions. (And Monster's comments, although phrased as "questions", are full of assumptions). Perhaps it is rooted in an elitist attitude that your books are better than another person's books.
Even so, A good place to start is to define what you mean by "evolution". The most general idea of evolution is simply "change". This in itself is a complex topic -- since there also seems to be plenty of evidence that many things are the same now as they were at the very beginning of time. But, perhaps you mean the changes driven by a law like "survival of the fittest". You can find evidence on both sides of this idea of evolution, and perhaps it turns out to be largely correct. but my personal belief is that it is not the best way to structure a law of nature. I suspect it is a manifestation of a more fundamental model of biological change caused by random mutations, driven by physical interactions at the molecular (or submolecular) level. But even these models run into difficulties when extended to large complex systems, such as organisms, groups of organisms, or interactions among groups of organisms. The roles of instinct and choice in these models are important, and actually not well understood by the researchers. (For example, consider what you would predict for the future evolution of humans. Is it really about maximizing survival rates of superior subgroups? Perhaps not.)
JP1119 · 36-40, M
It's true, scientists don't know absolutely everything about how evolution works, some questions they can't answer yet; however, we have some positive evidence to support the theory of evolution, and it's the best theory we have right now. On the other hand, there is no positive evidence to support the theory of creationism or intelligent design. The creationists' arguments are just to point out that there are still some things we don't yet know about evolution.
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@kajira
Wow sorry. I didn't see this post.
Of course there must be sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis. And there certainly appears to be.
We can look at the fossil record and see a progression of apes, to human-like apes to humans.
We can look at current human anatomy and see how it can be explained by common decent better than by special creation.
What i find most accessible and compelling is the genetic evidence. Since we've recently mapped the human genome, we can see interesting things like human chromosome 2. As you probably know, humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while all other great apes have 24. So given common decent, we would expect humans to also have 24. So where did that missing pair go?
Turns out it can be found at human chromosome 2: a fusion of two pairs of chromosomes with telomeres located in the center.
A second example i find quite compelling is that of retro viral DNA. Inactive junk DNA that has been left over in our genome from when a virus infects a reproductive cell. These instances of retro viral genetic material occur in our genome in the same spots that they occur in say, the chimpanzee genome.
A compelling argument for common decent that is not easily explained by a creation model.
So you see, there certainly IS good evidence for evolution. Enough to reject the null hypothesis. I haven't disparaged anyone for not accepting my assumptions. I've challenged them to present evidence which they believe supports their position.
I don't think "my books are better than another person's books". I think my evidence is better than another person's evidence.
Wow sorry. I didn't see this post.
Of course there must be sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis. And there certainly appears to be.
We can look at the fossil record and see a progression of apes, to human-like apes to humans.
We can look at current human anatomy and see how it can be explained by common decent better than by special creation.
What i find most accessible and compelling is the genetic evidence. Since we've recently mapped the human genome, we can see interesting things like human chromosome 2. As you probably know, humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while all other great apes have 24. So given common decent, we would expect humans to also have 24. So where did that missing pair go?
Turns out it can be found at human chromosome 2: a fusion of two pairs of chromosomes with telomeres located in the center.
A second example i find quite compelling is that of retro viral DNA. Inactive junk DNA that has been left over in our genome from when a virus infects a reproductive cell. These instances of retro viral genetic material occur in our genome in the same spots that they occur in say, the chimpanzee genome.
A compelling argument for common decent that is not easily explained by a creation model.
So you see, there certainly IS good evidence for evolution. Enough to reject the null hypothesis. I haven't disparaged anyone for not accepting my assumptions. I've challenged them to present evidence which they believe supports their position.
I don't think "my books are better than another person's books". I think my evidence is better than another person's evidence.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
kajira · 31-35, F
@Firefall: What did I say that is dishonest? Certainly I never said I need to personally see anything. If you are attacking me personally (such as the name calling), then you would be more effective if at least you are accurate.
Usually, when someone argues ad hominem, I don't bother to respond, but maybe you can use a second chance. Let's see. Regarding the null hypothesis, I agree it can be structured either way for the purpose of establishing statistical tests, but for the question of evolution it has long been the practice that H0 is "no evolution". For example, we call it the theory of evolution, and not the theory of non-evolution. Given the history of the course of thinking on the topic, it is clear the natural tendency has been to try to establish evidence of evolution as contrary to the assumed H0 -- starting even before Darwin actually. (By the way, I have actually read Darwin's On the Origin of the Species. Have you? If you read Darwin, you will see that even he considered the null hypothesis to be 'no evolution'.)
I suggest you read what I wrote more carefully, and make an argument as opposed to a diatribe I am well versed in the scientific method and epistemology. I expect you appreciate the differences between knowledge and belief.
Usually, when someone argues ad hominem, I don't bother to respond, but maybe you can use a second chance. Let's see. Regarding the null hypothesis, I agree it can be structured either way for the purpose of establishing statistical tests, but for the question of evolution it has long been the practice that H0 is "no evolution". For example, we call it the theory of evolution, and not the theory of non-evolution. Given the history of the course of thinking on the topic, it is clear the natural tendency has been to try to establish evidence of evolution as contrary to the assumed H0 -- starting even before Darwin actually. (By the way, I have actually read Darwin's On the Origin of the Species. Have you? If you read Darwin, you will see that even he considered the null hypothesis to be 'no evolution'.)
I suggest you read what I wrote more carefully, and make an argument as opposed to a diatribe I am well versed in the scientific method and epistemology. I expect you appreciate the differences between knowledge and belief.
SW-User
@rejuvenescence: you raise a very good objection, and I credit you for bringing it up - but truthfully, it's not necessary. We now know enough to point out that there is simply no evidence that any species ever evolved into another species. Every attempt to show that there is such evidence, basically uses false projections and are not based on evidence.
Additionally, remember this - the ardently pro-evolution crowd can't help themselves. Their worldview depends on evolution being true, so therefore they won't ever admit that the evidence doesn't support their theory.
... and never mind getting a straight response from Unparalleled Monster. Earlier, I provided him with evidence (or where you can find it) and an explanation on what a reasonable interpretation of such evidence is, and the only thing he came back with was to ignore, not respond to it, and claim that I wasn't providing evidence. Of course, that's what that point of view does - rather than respond, they ignore the evidence, and then when I wouldn't repeat the discussion over and over (ad infinitum), they pretend you aren't responding to them.
Exact a repeat performance with you.
Additionally, remember this - the ardently pro-evolution crowd can't help themselves. Their worldview depends on evolution being true, so therefore they won't ever admit that the evidence doesn't support their theory.
... and never mind getting a straight response from Unparalleled Monster. Earlier, I provided him with evidence (or where you can find it) and an explanation on what a reasonable interpretation of such evidence is, and the only thing he came back with was to ignore, not respond to it, and claim that I wasn't providing evidence. Of course, that's what that point of view does - rather than respond, they ignore the evidence, and then when I wouldn't repeat the discussion over and over (ad infinitum), they pretend you aren't responding to them.
Exact a repeat performance with you.
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@Djce45: [quote]rather than respond, they ignore the evidence[/quote]
Hahahaha! This from the guy who made not a single attempt to refute any of the evidence provided on talk origins but instead chose to discount in wholesale.
The hypocrisy exhibited here is astounding
lol
Hahahaha! This from the guy who made not a single attempt to refute any of the evidence provided on talk origins but instead chose to discount in wholesale.
The hypocrisy exhibited here is astounding
lol
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@rejuvenescence:
[quote]He compared the minor social behavioral change of dogs with such complex process of evolution (yet to be fully understand) so I stopped responding[/quote]
Wow. That seems like a bit of a shallow reason to stop responding.
I thought we were having a better discussion than that. I thought we were actually trying to understand one another's points.
My bad.
Nice talking to you anyway
[quote]He compared the minor social behavioral change of dogs with such complex process of evolution (yet to be fully understand) so I stopped responding[/quote]
Wow. That seems like a bit of a shallow reason to stop responding.
I thought we were having a better discussion than that. I thought we were actually trying to understand one another's points.
My bad.
Nice talking to you anyway
SW-User
The question is evolve from what/where to be what we are? Do u have evidence to prove it that we did evolve? Being scientific raised more questions than explanation about human evolution.
The fossils are the best evidence we have got for so far but they can't complete the picture since there is so much missing in between each species evolution and how they are linked? We simply can not explain evolution by hiding behind the time it takes for species to evolve. Each species evolution is a result of an geological "Event"; an ecological, environmental requirement made species to get adjust to it, therefore, resulting in a new trait in them.
One can't explain evolution without describing the need of the evolution for a particular species. Therefore, u have to answer what were those environmental-ecological requirements, made human to evolve from their so called parent specie? If it does have evolve than why not any other species responded to that environmental change in slightly the same way if not completely? Because that environmental-ecological change clearly did worked for other species living during that "Event", which gave us intelligence, speaking skills and thinking ability for beyond just survival skills, (we human are the only specie to have this ability since other species are all about playing a limited role like its written on their DNA).
Genetically speaking, life is all related since it survives in same ecology in a limited range of temperature-pressure for almost all living species. So, having common genes is interesting but not that surprising as much as the differences. Again, its the theory which results in countless question than definite answers.
The fossils are the best evidence we have got for so far but they can't complete the picture since there is so much missing in between each species evolution and how they are linked? We simply can not explain evolution by hiding behind the time it takes for species to evolve. Each species evolution is a result of an geological "Event"; an ecological, environmental requirement made species to get adjust to it, therefore, resulting in a new trait in them.
One can't explain evolution without describing the need of the evolution for a particular species. Therefore, u have to answer what were those environmental-ecological requirements, made human to evolve from their so called parent specie? If it does have evolve than why not any other species responded to that environmental change in slightly the same way if not completely? Because that environmental-ecological change clearly did worked for other species living during that "Event", which gave us intelligence, speaking skills and thinking ability for beyond just survival skills, (we human are the only specie to have this ability since other species are all about playing a limited role like its written on their DNA).
Genetically speaking, life is all related since it survives in same ecology in a limited range of temperature-pressure for almost all living species. So, having common genes is interesting but not that surprising as much as the differences. Again, its the theory which results in countless question than definite answers.
SW-User
@UnparalleledMonster:
I didn't expect all animals of different genre to evolve like human. It would be stupid, right? What I refer was the fact that the parent species of our human let say champs like 99.9% genetic similarity. They are far older than we human and we human appeared in the picture far later. Here is the thing which boggles my mind.
The phase of evolution if compared with human life today, it will become 1 million years equals to one day of human life. That how slow evolution work. That's the rule you have to understand to understand how evolution works in paleontology to understand how one different species evolves.
So, We human are only here on earth like 190 thousand years?(base on the oldest skeleton found Ethiopia). which makes it few hours for work for evolution for few champs to become human. Very fast. Isn't it. Beside, exceptionally working fast for we human to evolve that particular "EVENT" of human evolution, should have lefts clues on our surroundings like rock likes and other species. Which is not found yet? If it is please share it with me.
Again, One can't explain evolution without the necessities of it for a species. We call it "Events".let me introduce a big events like permo-triassic Event. Still we do research about it. Why? Because there are lots of thing missing in it. Likewise, No one can explain a specie evolution without explaining the change in its surrounding. That's why we paleontologist run crazy doing fields looking for fossils and the rock holding that fossils to find clues. .
We have taken this subject with the our paleontologist research teachers and it gives interesting scenarios to think about. Not once, I heard my teachers or any from where I worked saying, its fact. We talk about it with a probability. You can read any research article where we use the words like "may", ",might" possibly but not that it has evolve for this particular reason. We do so to keep the space for those gaps and further research.
As far u saying we have gotten complete picture from fossil record. Every time, I went for field and looking two succession of rock layers with different fossil record with couple of millions years missing between them, made me think of, what I am referring, gaps. We have a pretty good bigger picture of evolution but we don't have fine scale picture of how evolution have worked.
As far, u referring of bacteria evolution? I have seen how inter species evolution work at first hand on much bigger animals. But, never seen two different specie interacting and giving birth to different one? We "might" never know how we have reached here since I believe answers lies beyond earth. After all, we tiny tiny fraction of such large system and looking to find facts from this dot, we called earth.
Lastly, I do agree, many animals show far complex ability for doing different tasks. but again, when a predator evolves, a vulnerable species evolves a better defensive technique against it. So, we have come to same point again, How our evolution from champs effect other species? Which should have logically?
I didn't expect all animals of different genre to evolve like human. It would be stupid, right? What I refer was the fact that the parent species of our human let say champs like 99.9% genetic similarity. They are far older than we human and we human appeared in the picture far later. Here is the thing which boggles my mind.
The phase of evolution if compared with human life today, it will become 1 million years equals to one day of human life. That how slow evolution work. That's the rule you have to understand to understand how evolution works in paleontology to understand how one different species evolves.
So, We human are only here on earth like 190 thousand years?(base on the oldest skeleton found Ethiopia). which makes it few hours for work for evolution for few champs to become human. Very fast. Isn't it. Beside, exceptionally working fast for we human to evolve that particular "EVENT" of human evolution, should have lefts clues on our surroundings like rock likes and other species. Which is not found yet? If it is please share it with me.
Again, One can't explain evolution without the necessities of it for a species. We call it "Events".let me introduce a big events like permo-triassic Event. Still we do research about it. Why? Because there are lots of thing missing in it. Likewise, No one can explain a specie evolution without explaining the change in its surrounding. That's why we paleontologist run crazy doing fields looking for fossils and the rock holding that fossils to find clues. .
We have taken this subject with the our paleontologist research teachers and it gives interesting scenarios to think about. Not once, I heard my teachers or any from where I worked saying, its fact. We talk about it with a probability. You can read any research article where we use the words like "may", ",might" possibly but not that it has evolve for this particular reason. We do so to keep the space for those gaps and further research.
As far u saying we have gotten complete picture from fossil record. Every time, I went for field and looking two succession of rock layers with different fossil record with couple of millions years missing between them, made me think of, what I am referring, gaps. We have a pretty good bigger picture of evolution but we don't have fine scale picture of how evolution have worked.
As far, u referring of bacteria evolution? I have seen how inter species evolution work at first hand on much bigger animals. But, never seen two different specie interacting and giving birth to different one? We "might" never know how we have reached here since I believe answers lies beyond earth. After all, we tiny tiny fraction of such large system and looking to find facts from this dot, we called earth.
Lastly, I do agree, many animals show far complex ability for doing different tasks. but again, when a predator evolves, a vulnerable species evolves a better defensive technique against it. So, we have come to same point again, How our evolution from champs effect other species? Which should have logically?
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@rejuvenescence:
[quote]Very fast. Isn't it. Beside, exceptionally working fast for we human to evolve that particular "EVENT" of human evolution, should have lefts clues on our surroundings like rock likes and other species. Which is not found yet? If it is please share it with me.[/quote]
It is very fast compared to what we believe to be the usual pace of evolution. But so what? We can see the progression in the fossil record of hominid evolution. It is recognized the the current model of evolution is not complete. That's why there is still so much research into it. The point i'm making being that not necessarily understanding why something happened doesn't trump the evidence that it did.
As to the "event" leaving traces i'm not sure what you you mean. Drastic environmental upheaval is not by any means the only way evolution occurs.
[quote], No one can explain a specie evolution without explaining the change in its surrounding.[/quote]
I think we already covered this. No you can't know exactly why a species evolved in a certain way. Of course science uses words like "may have" because that's just how we write when discussing scientific evidence.
But again, not knowing the precise reason for a morphological change doesn't mean we can't see that it took place.
As you know there are many theories as to what drove human evolution. But what we can actually observe through the fossil record is that it did happen
[quote] But, never seen two different specie interacting and giving birth to different one[/quote]
Have you ever seen a mule or a liger? Two different species mating and producing offspring. But again i assume you're referring to higher taxanomic levels and that's not how evolution works
[quote]We have a pretty good bigger picture of evolution but we don't have fine scale picture of how evolution have worked. [/quote]
...yes but we do have the broader picture of how it works. So?
[quote]How our evolution from champs effect other species? Which should have logically?[/quote]
What makes you think it hasn't?
How would we know?
I mean as for a species being affected by humans there is the obvious example of dogs. Used to be wolves and now they're pets who have changed morphologically and behaviorally as a result of humans
[quote]Very fast. Isn't it. Beside, exceptionally working fast for we human to evolve that particular "EVENT" of human evolution, should have lefts clues on our surroundings like rock likes and other species. Which is not found yet? If it is please share it with me.[/quote]
It is very fast compared to what we believe to be the usual pace of evolution. But so what? We can see the progression in the fossil record of hominid evolution. It is recognized the the current model of evolution is not complete. That's why there is still so much research into it. The point i'm making being that not necessarily understanding why something happened doesn't trump the evidence that it did.
As to the "event" leaving traces i'm not sure what you you mean. Drastic environmental upheaval is not by any means the only way evolution occurs.
[quote], No one can explain a specie evolution without explaining the change in its surrounding.[/quote]
I think we already covered this. No you can't know exactly why a species evolved in a certain way. Of course science uses words like "may have" because that's just how we write when discussing scientific evidence.
But again, not knowing the precise reason for a morphological change doesn't mean we can't see that it took place.
As you know there are many theories as to what drove human evolution. But what we can actually observe through the fossil record is that it did happen
[quote] But, never seen two different specie interacting and giving birth to different one[/quote]
Have you ever seen a mule or a liger? Two different species mating and producing offspring. But again i assume you're referring to higher taxanomic levels and that's not how evolution works
[quote]We have a pretty good bigger picture of evolution but we don't have fine scale picture of how evolution have worked. [/quote]
...yes but we do have the broader picture of how it works. So?
[quote]How our evolution from champs effect other species? Which should have logically?[/quote]
What makes you think it hasn't?
How would we know?
I mean as for a species being affected by humans there is the obvious example of dogs. Used to be wolves and now they're pets who have changed morphologically and behaviorally as a result of humans
SW-User
@UnparalleledMonster: No, there isn't, and in previous posts I debunked what you said. There is no evidence that any species has ever evolved from any other species. Zip, zap, zero - and repeating previously debunked theories simply shows how bankrupt your argument is.
SW-User
@UnparalleledMonster My narrative isn't false. It's what the scientific evidence, the actual scientific evidence supports. Your narrative is the false one, and it's been debunked scientifically.
I'm not opening Talk Origins. I've opened them before, and I know they give the stock answer that evolutionists provide, including arguments that have been long debunked, even by evolutionists themselves, over and over again.
The bottom line is this - if any species had ever evolved from another species, there would have been evidence found, and the transitions could be documented. We have enough capability now that we can say that if the evidence existed, we could and would have found it.
So what have we found. Similarities between species - sure, life has a similar template. But no evolutionary link. Every time evolutionists claim to provide evidence, it's easily debunked because when one follows through - they find huge gaping holes, and none of the minute transitions required. What have we found? Simply that new species exist at different times throughout history.
We have evidence that species evolve different characteristics. We don't have any example, not one, of them evolving into something else. The other damning piece of evidence is that more and more, our top scientists are finding that the micro biological processes that would require to have occurred (i.e.... the gaping hole that goes unmentioned by evolutionists hoping no one notices), don't actually occur and/or have levels of probability so outrageously hard to get to, that an amoeba would not have been created in 13.7 billion years of the universe - never mind higher forms of life.
So while others may simply say that the theory of evolution is unproven, I think it's gone past that... it's essentially debunked. You are feeding others a lie if you say otherwise, one that has easily been demonstrated.
You need to update your thinking, and stop listening to wishful thinking.
I'm not opening Talk Origins. I've opened them before, and I know they give the stock answer that evolutionists provide, including arguments that have been long debunked, even by evolutionists themselves, over and over again.
The bottom line is this - if any species had ever evolved from another species, there would have been evidence found, and the transitions could be documented. We have enough capability now that we can say that if the evidence existed, we could and would have found it.
So what have we found. Similarities between species - sure, life has a similar template. But no evolutionary link. Every time evolutionists claim to provide evidence, it's easily debunked because when one follows through - they find huge gaping holes, and none of the minute transitions required. What have we found? Simply that new species exist at different times throughout history.
We have evidence that species evolve different characteristics. We don't have any example, not one, of them evolving into something else. The other damning piece of evidence is that more and more, our top scientists are finding that the micro biological processes that would require to have occurred (i.e.... the gaping hole that goes unmentioned by evolutionists hoping no one notices), don't actually occur and/or have levels of probability so outrageously hard to get to, that an amoeba would not have been created in 13.7 billion years of the universe - never mind higher forms of life.
So while others may simply say that the theory of evolution is unproven, I think it's gone past that... it's essentially debunked. You are feeding others a lie if you say otherwise, one that has easily been demonstrated.
You need to update your thinking, and stop listening to wishful thinking.
SW-User
You have to believe the evidence as it actually stands... as it is portrayed by the laws of science, and in demonstrated form, and resist undemonstrable (or better yet, refutable) assumptions in order to come up with wishful conclusions.
The bottom line is this... Darwin was correct to the degree that life forms evolve. But the evidence doesn't show that any species ever evolved into another species (regardless of which classification level you are operating on). The evidence is only that species appear (Including us). The conclusion is obvious... especially since the transitions from one species to another, or shall we say, the record of change species to where it becomes something else, is not only not existent, but by now it appears the laws of biology and statistics, not to mention the constants of the universe don't allow it to happen.
Thus... species change... modify some characteristics, but never become something else. This evidence is not hard to find. Talk Origins won't show it because it crashes their world view, but then again, they're not that credible to begin with. If you insist on a website, True Origins regularly debunks Talk Origins. Of course... Talk Origins advocates claim that True Origins are simply deniers... or religious nuts, i.e... the ad hominem charge used when evidence weighs against you. Compare the two, and make up your own mind. Be objective.
Basically, there's no reason to treat your opening position, that humans evolved, as the starting point of current scientific understanding.
Here is just one.. but maybe among the best, links: https://www.trueorigin.org/biologymyth.php
The bottom line is this... Darwin was correct to the degree that life forms evolve. But the evidence doesn't show that any species ever evolved into another species (regardless of which classification level you are operating on). The evidence is only that species appear (Including us). The conclusion is obvious... especially since the transitions from one species to another, or shall we say, the record of change species to where it becomes something else, is not only not existent, but by now it appears the laws of biology and statistics, not to mention the constants of the universe don't allow it to happen.
Thus... species change... modify some characteristics, but never become something else. This evidence is not hard to find. Talk Origins won't show it because it crashes their world view, but then again, they're not that credible to begin with. If you insist on a website, True Origins regularly debunks Talk Origins. Of course... Talk Origins advocates claim that True Origins are simply deniers... or religious nuts, i.e... the ad hominem charge used when evidence weighs against you. Compare the two, and make up your own mind. Be objective.
Basically, there's no reason to treat your opening position, that humans evolved, as the starting point of current scientific understanding.
Here is just one.. but maybe among the best, links: https://www.trueorigin.org/biologymyth.php
EmmelineVivinne · 26-30, F
Zeusdelight · 61-69, M
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@Djce45
Yeah. Funny how you're willing to write post after post about how you won't provide any evidence (but evolution has been disproved) and yet you can't take the time to actually post one scrap of this very easy to find evidence.
[quote] I told you what the evidence was [/quote]
lol sure. You made an ignorant comment about about transition species that only demonstrates your lack of understanding on the subject. Oh and then you said that any transition evidence that IS produced is easily debunked. All without any evidence.
And then you made the tired old probability argument with a transparent appeal to authority of "our top scientists" lol.
And strangely enough in my google searches i haven't been able to find anything debunking evolution. Particularly by "top scientists".
Turns out all there is out there are the "we haven't seen one species change into another" (disregarding of course the fossil record) and the oh so ignorant "each transition fossil found is not a transition but just a complete organism" argument which is traditionally made by people with no training in the field or understanding of bone morphology.
God damn dude. If you're just going to repeat "dur evolution is debunked" and refuse (again and again and again) to provide even a semblance of support for you're assertion, then why they hell are you bothering to post at all?
We've already established that you think it's false.
Put up or shut up.
Yeah. Funny how you're willing to write post after post about how you won't provide any evidence (but evolution has been disproved) and yet you can't take the time to actually post one scrap of this very easy to find evidence.
[quote] I told you what the evidence was [/quote]
lol sure. You made an ignorant comment about about transition species that only demonstrates your lack of understanding on the subject. Oh and then you said that any transition evidence that IS produced is easily debunked. All without any evidence.
And then you made the tired old probability argument with a transparent appeal to authority of "our top scientists" lol.
And strangely enough in my google searches i haven't been able to find anything debunking evolution. Particularly by "top scientists".
Turns out all there is out there are the "we haven't seen one species change into another" (disregarding of course the fossil record) and the oh so ignorant "each transition fossil found is not a transition but just a complete organism" argument which is traditionally made by people with no training in the field or understanding of bone morphology.
God damn dude. If you're just going to repeat "dur evolution is debunked" and refuse (again and again and again) to provide even a semblance of support for you're assertion, then why they hell are you bothering to post at all?
We've already established that you think it's false.
Put up or shut up.
Showaddict · 70-79, M
If you believe in Creationism you have to throw out nearly all of Geology, a lot o Biology and say that he physics of dating rocks and such is totally false. Plus you have to dump most of the Astronomy theories on how the Solar System evolved. The list goes on and on and on. You either believe in Science or you cling to 2000 year old beliefs on how the world and the Universe was formed.
Don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs!
You can STILL be a Chritian and believe in Evolution.
Don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs!
You can STILL be a Chritian and believe in Evolution.
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@Djce45
lol forgive me if i don't find "i don't feel like it" to be a terribly compelling counter argument.
So you trotted in, spouted some vague nonsense about science discrediting evolution and subsequently refused to provide any evidence or even look at the evidence presented to you.
You made a very bold claim and now you can't be bothered to back it up in even the smallest way. The very clear message here is that you're not well-informed and are yourself not particularly up to date. Or perhaps you just lack confidence in whatever evidence you feel supports you.
For someone who doesn't have the time in their life to revisit this debate you certainly took some time to post unsubstantiated claims and a lengthy explanation as to why you won't post any evidence.
You're done here.
Feel free to come back when you've got something resembling evidence to support your assertion.
If you can't then don't bother to reply.
lol forgive me if i don't find "i don't feel like it" to be a terribly compelling counter argument.
So you trotted in, spouted some vague nonsense about science discrediting evolution and subsequently refused to provide any evidence or even look at the evidence presented to you.
You made a very bold claim and now you can't be bothered to back it up in even the smallest way. The very clear message here is that you're not well-informed and are yourself not particularly up to date. Or perhaps you just lack confidence in whatever evidence you feel supports you.
For someone who doesn't have the time in their life to revisit this debate you certainly took some time to post unsubstantiated claims and a lengthy explanation as to why you won't post any evidence.
You're done here.
Feel free to come back when you've got something resembling evidence to support your assertion.
If you can't then don't bother to reply.
SW-User
I'm sorry I've repeated this conversation like a zillion times. I'm not going to humor you. I'm not going to take the time to catch up, send links, what have you.
I have in the past, but this time, you can look up the evidence yourself. The scientific evidence no longer supports the theory of evolution. You can find it, it's not that hard, and if you don't find it then you are not looking hard enough (which of course, is the evolutionist's problem).
As far as I'm concerned Talk Origins is a discredited website, but my review of them was years ago, so I admit I'm not much into this argument much more. I don't have time in my life to re-visit this. I do know that it's been shown that transitions and haven't been found, and all claims to the contrary are essentially debunked. So basically I'm bored with this argument, and I don't want to start with yet another person who's buying into debunked, evolutionist nonsense.
Like I said, get up to date.
I have in the past, but this time, you can look up the evidence yourself. The scientific evidence no longer supports the theory of evolution. You can find it, it's not that hard, and if you don't find it then you are not looking hard enough (which of course, is the evolutionist's problem).
As far as I'm concerned Talk Origins is a discredited website, but my review of them was years ago, so I admit I'm not much into this argument much more. I don't have time in my life to re-visit this. I do know that it's been shown that transitions and haven't been found, and all claims to the contrary are essentially debunked. So basically I'm bored with this argument, and I don't want to start with yet another person who's buying into debunked, evolutionist nonsense.
Like I said, get up to date.
EmmelineVivinne · 26-30, F
firefall · 61-69, M
Simple: the world was only created in 4004BC, so there hasn't been time enough for evolutionary action to change homo sapiens, yet. 😁
j/k, there is no plausible reason to disbelieve in human evolution except ex-cathedra authoritarianism (or, as I prefer to call it, bootlicking religious style).
j/k, there is no plausible reason to disbelieve in human evolution except ex-cathedra authoritarianism (or, as I prefer to call it, bootlicking religious style).
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@Djce45
Aaaaand you just repeated yourself, made no attempt whatsoever to address even three of the many evidences i presented and linked me to a site that explains that biology can still make sense without evolution. I'm not sure that you could make it ANY clearer that you've based your assertion on a superficial understanding of the concepts involved and are plainly afraid to have your positions refuted by inconvenient things like evidence.
Fuck. I'm sorry dude. I can't waste any more time on you.
Come back when you're willing to post evidence instead of excuses.
If you feel the need, please attempt to save face in whatever manner is pleasing to you. I won't be reading it.
Peace.
Aaaaand you just repeated yourself, made no attempt whatsoever to address even three of the many evidences i presented and linked me to a site that explains that biology can still make sense without evolution. I'm not sure that you could make it ANY clearer that you've based your assertion on a superficial understanding of the concepts involved and are plainly afraid to have your positions refuted by inconvenient things like evidence.
Fuck. I'm sorry dude. I can't waste any more time on you.
Come back when you're willing to post evidence instead of excuses.
If you feel the need, please attempt to save face in whatever manner is pleasing to you. I won't be reading it.
Peace.
SW-User
You didn't present any evidence, you reported easily debunked babble, that barely even pretends to follow the scientific method.
You keep talking about "excuses" but I've clearly stated I'm not going to respond to links. I've done that before, here and in other places, and I'm not repeating it to you.
I provided you a place to go if you want to seek some actual facts, although frankly it's not like it's hard to find. You claim that I have superficial understanding - but the reality is I've studied this issue, and you clearly have not. You don't understand how to use and validate scientific evidence, or how to apply the scientific method, and apparently your ignorance is willful, -- as in determined to not know the truth.
But you're right about one thing - don't waste any more time on me. I'm nobody. You, however, only have this lifetime to learn the truth. Go use your time more wisely.
You keep talking about "excuses" but I've clearly stated I'm not going to respond to links. I've done that before, here and in other places, and I'm not repeating it to you.
I provided you a place to go if you want to seek some actual facts, although frankly it's not like it's hard to find. You claim that I have superficial understanding - but the reality is I've studied this issue, and you clearly have not. You don't understand how to use and validate scientific evidence, or how to apply the scientific method, and apparently your ignorance is willful, -- as in determined to not know the truth.
But you're right about one thing - don't waste any more time on me. I'm nobody. You, however, only have this lifetime to learn the truth. Go use your time more wisely.
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@Djce45
P.S. If you want to undermine Talk origins as a credible source you're going to have to do more than just poo poo it.
I invite you to to debunk any one of just a few of these concepts which i have no doubt that you would first have to look up because your understanding of this subject is plainly so very shallow:
Nested hierarchies
Ontogenesis
Phylogeny and DNA
I know this goes a bit deeper than "but ders no transition fossils!" But give it your best shot.
Or just do what anyone reading this knows you'll do: make a transparent excuse, repeat your unsubstantiated nonsense and slink off tail between your legs.
Your move
P.S. If you want to undermine Talk origins as a credible source you're going to have to do more than just poo poo it.
I invite you to to debunk any one of just a few of these concepts which i have no doubt that you would first have to look up because your understanding of this subject is plainly so very shallow:
Nested hierarchies
Ontogenesis
Phylogeny and DNA
I know this goes a bit deeper than "but ders no transition fossils!" But give it your best shot.
Or just do what anyone reading this knows you'll do: make a transparent excuse, repeat your unsubstantiated nonsense and slink off tail between your legs.
Your move
SW-User
It wasn't a counter-argument. I'm just done explaining this to people who refuse to understand, and frankly are quite capable of finding the truth for themselves.
Evolution isn't true. It's been debunked. I told you what the evidence was - it's not hard to find, and I'm not going to find it (again), for another person online. I spent something like 100 odd IM's on another post, going over this in quite some detail. I'm not going to repeat it here.
If you choose to believe unscientific babble, that's your problem. But you're not going to get away with pretending to be rational. BTW... if Talk Origins is your source... that doesn't add to your credibility.
Evolution isn't true. It's been debunked. I told you what the evidence was - it's not hard to find, and I'm not going to find it (again), for another person online. I spent something like 100 odd IM's on another post, going over this in quite some detail. I'm not going to repeat it here.
If you choose to believe unscientific babble, that's your problem. But you're not going to get away with pretending to be rational. BTW... if Talk Origins is your source... that doesn't add to your credibility.
firefall · 61-69, M
kajira: what a massive pile of dishonesty and handwaving. Why is no evolution the 'natural null hypothesis'? THere's no basis to assume that.
You have to personally see evidence of evolution rather than read about others' exploration of it? so do you feel that way about all science? - in which case you've just destroyed all science as you would have to go and independantly research every verity you rely on.
fah, why do I bother? anyone so staggeringly dishonest will never engage at a meaningful level anyway
You have to personally see evidence of evolution rather than read about others' exploration of it? so do you feel that way about all science? - in which case you've just destroyed all science as you would have to go and independantly research every verity you rely on.
fah, why do I bother? anyone so staggeringly dishonest will never engage at a meaningful level anyway
SW-User
Well... let's see... primarily because the theory of evolution is largely debunked on scientific grounds. Almost every so-called explanation that tries to show how evolution has been proven, relies on totally unproven, and in some cases actually disproven assumptions that transitions have been found, or that they have been found to be credible.
To believe in Evolution now requires a lot more faith than to be against it, because it's not based on demonstrable evidence, but a base of increasingly untenable assumptions.
To believe in Evolution now requires a lot more faith than to be against it, because it's not based on demonstrable evidence, but a base of increasingly untenable assumptions.
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@kajira
Well the obvious reason to reject the null hypothesis is that there is evidence that allows you to do so.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
As for the random comments on my person and motivation i'm afraid i don't see the part where i disparaged anyone. Feel free to bring my attention to it.
Not too sure which assumptions you're referring to unless you take issue with debating a point starting at the assumption that one is correct.
And what's this about elitism?
From now on let's just stick to the subject shall we?
Well the obvious reason to reject the null hypothesis is that there is evidence that allows you to do so.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
As for the random comments on my person and motivation i'm afraid i don't see the part where i disparaged anyone. Feel free to bring my attention to it.
Not too sure which assumptions you're referring to unless you take issue with debating a point starting at the assumption that one is correct.
And what's this about elitism?
From now on let's just stick to the subject shall we?
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@EmmelineVivinne
How do you reconcile the overwhelming observable evidence of a transition and progression between species with the idea that they were all created simultaneously?
Why does the fossil record show apparent morphological progression between organisms and specific anatomy? Why do we see in geology a universal progression from less complex organisms to more complex organisms?
Is your choice to believe scripture made by simply not acknowledging the physical evidence to the contrary?
How do you reconcile the overwhelming observable evidence of a transition and progression between species with the idea that they were all created simultaneously?
Why does the fossil record show apparent morphological progression between organisms and specific anatomy? Why do we see in geology a universal progression from less complex organisms to more complex organisms?
Is your choice to believe scripture made by simply not acknowledging the physical evidence to the contrary?
KellyBear · 41-45, F
In some ways we evolve (science, technology) or as an individual (learning in life, from our experiences), but however....not all human beings are evolving: some still don't realize how precious life is (e.g. ISIS), there is no overall peace, politics and the whole system sucks, not to mention all the pollution so we are destroying our planet basically.
So it's both positive and negative, in one way we are evolving, and in other ways we stand still or get worse.
So it's both positive and negative, in one way we are evolving, and in other ways we stand still or get worse.
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@Djce45
....yeah like i did ask you to provide any of the specifics you feel are disproved.
So far all you've said is that it has been scientifically debunked and that transitions fossils are not proof because every stage of transition isn't shown.
Humour me and take the top three points from talk origins that have been debunked by scientists in general and evolutionists specifically.
I'll wait
....yeah like i did ask you to provide any of the specifics you feel are disproved.
So far all you've said is that it has been scientifically debunked and that transitions fossils are not proof because every stage of transition isn't shown.
Humour me and take the top three points from talk origins that have been debunked by scientists in general and evolutionists specifically.
I'll wait
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@Djce45
Well talk about your false narratives.
This maybe help you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
I'm assuming you're not actually going to read any of that but i'd be delighted to see you respond to some of the evidences therein.
I'd also be interested to see what sources you feel suggest that evolution has been debunked on scientific grounds and the scientists who support that idea
Well talk about your false narratives.
This maybe help you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
I'm assuming you're not actually going to read any of that but i'd be delighted to see you respond to some of the evidences therein.
I'd also be interested to see what sources you feel suggest that evolution has been debunked on scientific grounds and the scientists who support that idea
SW-User
I don't want to repeat my previous posts. You'll have to look it up for yourself.
Basically it comes down to this - evolutionists say that the evidence for transition exists. But it doesn't. They are simply adding wishful thinking... to the gaps in the evidence.
No species ever came to be from evolution. End of story.
Your attempt to sidewise the evidence, or lack thereof, notwithstanding.
Basically it comes down to this - evolutionists say that the evidence for transition exists. But it doesn't. They are simply adding wishful thinking... to the gaps in the evidence.
No species ever came to be from evolution. End of story.
Your attempt to sidewise the evidence, or lack thereof, notwithstanding.
SW-User
Never mind listening to Unparalleled Monster. He's an uneducated lemming who simply believes what he's told, and doesn't explore the evidence for himself. If he had, and if he were honest, he'd know that the theory of evolution, as it pertains to the origin of species, is untrue. It's been debunked.
SW-User
Simply put, the physical evidence that you mention - actually doesn't support evolution. That's a false narrative, a false interpretation (though probably willful), and easily debunked by those who actually know the evidence.
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@EmmelineVivinne
lol well yes the earth is less than 6000 years old.
Never hear of ex-cathedra authoritarianism. What the crap is that?
lol well yes the earth is less than 6000 years old.
Never hear of ex-cathedra authoritarianism. What the crap is that?
Sunshine · 26-30, F
Monster, We all evolve. I couldn't boil water and now I'm a pretty good cook. I'm constantly evolving into a better human being.
SW-User
No ,... you're right. But I'm bored with it... I've provided said evidence over the years.. just not doing it again.
SW-User
No slinking necessary. Even you're own evidence supports my conclusion... if you are honest.
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@Sunshine
Yeah i guess in general. Just with a specific focus on human evolution
Yeah i guess in general. Just with a specific focus on human evolution
Sunshine · 26-30, F
Are you asking if we believe in creation/evolution?
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@EmmelineVivinne
And why is that?
And why is that?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment