evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
in the realm of science you remove the part of the theory that adds nothing to understanding the situation.

I'll agree with that.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
god adds nothing to our understanding here, we remove god from the equation.

occams razor

I have no issue with that on this thread. This is a "scientifically proven facts" thread. Let's talk science.

Originally posted by Lightstorm
S4G, THEY HAVE THE PROOF OF EVOLUTION! Amazing I know but they've done it in labs.

Then I'm at a disadvantage because they'd not done the same for my labs.

Originally posted by Lightstorm
Every time you pet a cat or dog you support Evolution. Everytime you get a vaccine you are supporting evolution. Everytime you duck cause you're tall you support Human Evolution. Everytime you don't get sick from a disease that killed people 500 years ago you are supporting evolution. Everytime you watch Flipper on TV you are supporting Macro Evolution.

You're kidding, right? I'd recommend starting on page 1 of this thread.

Originally posted by Lightstorm
You support Evolution every day you just won't admit it.

I'd ask for examples, but given the reasoning in the prior quote, I have my doubts. Call me a skeptic

All I have to say is that you cannot use science to prove things that you dont understand. People make to many mistakes and science is all made up anyway.
We made up a number system. Who is to say 1+1 equals 2 and the color red is not really black. Everything we have proving we evolved came from mans thoughts about things. If you can believe that we all evolved from some tiny ass pieces of molecules then you should be able to believe that we were created by God. Evolution has no facts and cant be proven no matter what you say. Hey look me and a dog have a heart we must be related. SOOOO stupid

Hey people get something straight evolution has nothing to do with us not getting sick or anything like that. That is people just getting smarter because we know more. If it were evolution then we would not need to take the vaccines and we would have become immune.

Originally posted by saint4God
Definitions get really fuzzy here. What one textbook calls microevolution, another calls adaptation. I think this thread has rehashed the variances extensively. What I haven't seen presented yet is the connection between microevolution/adapation with macroevolution/evolution.

Microevolution is adaption, such as a yellow and black colored butterfly, which is to fool it's predators in to thinking that it's poisonous, same with some frogs, however they are actually poisonous. Some butterflies have adpated to look poisonous.

For observable evidence, the peppered moth during the industrial revolution in England, because pollution blackened trees and buildings, moths were conspicuous against them, and were eaten by birds. However, over time, in 1848 the first dark colored moth was recorded. Today 90% of peppered moths are dark, and more than 70 species in England have undergone a change from light to dark.

So we can observe microevolution in nature, both survival mechanisms, one to look poisonous and one to look inconspicuous and less visible to predators. Color adaption in nature therefore cannot be seen as random. Microevolution has also been observable in the breeding of dogs.

Originally posted by saint4God
Is it not illogical to state something that cannot be shown as a working theory a science? Either it follows The Scientific Method or it is not science. I'm not sure where the argument is.

In most theories of evolution macroevolution is a large collection of microevolution changes that accumulate over a long period of time, which in turn causes speciation. Fundamentally they don't mean different processes, rather a difference of time scale. Creationists have adopted micro and macro and made them seem like two entirely different things, accepting micro yet throwing out macro as preposterous.

What specific parts of evolution do you not agree with?

We cannot observe an ape-like species magically change in to a human or magically have a human baby, which is absolutely okay, because that's not what evolution is. Dr Hovind once said 'monkeys are still having babies, why don't they just make another human'. So people's expectations of evolution are skewed at best.

There are however observable fossil records to show transitional species, not just of humans, but of other species too, horses for example.

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for, do you want us to put an ape in a lab and wait for it to change in to a human, because honestly, that's what you seem to think science needs to do, otherwise evolution isn't a theory..

Originally posted by Mrknighttime32
If it were evolution then we would not need to take the vaccines and we would have become immune.

Vaccines are such a new phenomenon that some people believe they actually do more harm than good. The MMR vaccine for example.

I can't say how long vaccines have been around, because I don't know. As a guess I would say 50 to 100 years? The only thing about vaccines is that they do wonders for the person who gets them, supposedly. However, anti-bodies are not passed on to babies. Anti-bodies are something that you develope during your life. If I get chicken pox, I will never get it again, I am immune. However, If I have kids, my kids will not magically be immune to it. To say ''If evolution were true, then people would be born immune to diseases'' is absolutely ridiculous.

[edit on 24-6-2007 by shaunybaby]

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by Mrknighttime32
If it were evolution then we would not need to take the vaccines and we would have become immune.

Vaccines are such a new phenomenon that some people believe they actually do more harm than good. The MMR vaccine for example.

I can't say how long vaccines have been around, because I don't know. As a guess I would say 50 to 100 years? The only thing about vaccines is that they do wonders for the person who gets them, supposedly. However, anti-bodies are not passed on to babies. Anti-bodies are something that you develop during your life. If I get chicken pox, I will never get it again, I am immune. However, If I have kids, my kids will not magically be immune to it. To say ''If evolution were true, then people would be born immune to diseases'' is absolutely ridiculous.

[edit on 24-6-2007 by shaunybaby]

Its the true if evolution was so true we would eventually become immune to these illnesses that we get because our body would become more smarter or powerful not sure how to put it.

Originally posted by Mrknighttime32

Its the true if evolution was so true we would eventually become immune to these illnesses that we get because our body would become more smarter or powerful not sure how to put it.

If we evolve an immunity or even just acquire an immunity from a virus/disease then the virus/disease will then itself evolve into another virus/disease that we dont have an immunity for, its swings and roundabouts - plus the fact that virii and bacteria evolve a lot quicker than us means we are at a disadvantage in bevoming immune.


G

Yea that would be a good point. but I bet if you take away all the hospital care and all the tech we have and let a baby just be born like they worn born 1000 years ago those babies are going to be the same type of babies both able to get sick from the same things. It is all a matter of technology. Take away tech and we are just like the caveman we talk about.

Originally posted by Mrknighttime32
Its the true if evolution was so true we would eventually become immune to these illnesses that we get because our body would become more smarter or powerful not sure how to put it.

Congratulations on ignoring every single word I wrote. You get an A+ in ignorance.

Well, to all crationists and IDers, do you believe Pi=3.0? That's what the Bible says. So when are you going to court to have that Pi=3.0 taught in math classes of Public Schools?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Microevolution is adaption, such as a yellow and black colored butterfly, which is to fool it's predators in to thinking that it's poisonous, same with some frogs, however they are actually poisonous. Some butterflies have adpated to look poisonous.

Okay, this will help our discussions going forward if you'd like to use them as synonyms. Not everyone (or book) sees it this way however, so it's something to be aware of.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
For observable evidence, the peppered moth during the industrial revolution in England, because pollution blackened trees and buildings, moths were conspicuous against them, and were eaten by birds. However, over time, in 1848 the first dark colored moth was recorded. Today 90% of peppered moths are dark, and more than 70 species in England have undergone a change from light to dark.

Firstly, this is "unnatural selection" unless you believe industrial pollution was created by something other than mankind. Secondly there's still considerable debate about natural selection specifically in this form:

www.arn.org...

www.charliewagner.net...

Interesting you bring up a species akin to what I work with daily ^_^. Here are the little friends at the lab:

Trichoplusia ni, cabbage looper
Helicoverpa zea, corn earworm
Heliothis virescens, tobacco budworm
Spodoptera frugiperda, fall armyworm
Spodoptera exigua, beet armyworm
Plutella xylostella, diamondback moth

Originally posted by shaunybaby
So we can observe microevolution in nature, both survival mechanisms, one to look poisonous and one to look inconspicuous and less visible to predators. Color adaption in nature therefore cannot be seen as random. Microevolution has also been observable in the breeding of dogs.

If you're saying microevolution = adaptation, I'll not agrue. But, if you're saying microevolution leads to macroevolution, that's the point I think is lacking.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
In most theories of evolution macroevolution is a large collection of microevolution changes that accumulate over a long period of time, which in turn causes speciation. Fundamentally they don't mean different processes, rather a difference of time scale.

Here's the problem. Adaptation does not include mutation, then passing of alleles through very strong gametic and phenotypic barriers. Also, Adaptation does not mean a new trait is formed, rather a shifting along the genetic code from one end to the other. For example, eye color can be green or brown or shades in between. You will not have a child born with purple eyes that reflect light in the dark. The reason is because that combination of alleles is not available to humankind. To "invent" that is what macroevolution pruports out of some mechanistic need such as natural selection, flukeology, undeveloped but amusing chaos theory, or druidic luck.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Creationists have adopted micro and macro and made them seem like two entirely different things, accepting micro yet throwing out macro as preposterous.

I don't care what word you use so long as we're clear on the definition. Tomayto, tomahto. Microevolution implies macroevolution however, and the connection is not apparent at this time.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
What specific parts of evolution do you not agree with? We cannot observe an ape-like species magically change in to a human or magically have a human baby, which is absolutely okay, because that's not what evolution is. Dr Hovind once said 'monkeys are still having babies, why don't they just make another human'. So people's expectations of evolution are skewed at best.

I get the concept and would accept change over time if evident. I agree some people's simplistic thinkings on the matter seem absurd.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
There are however observable fossil records to show transitional species, not just of humans, but of other species too, horses for example.

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for,

Specifics. Observation. Mechanism. Model. Data. Testing. Reproducibility. Got any?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
do you want us to put an ape in a lab and wait for it to change in to a human, because honestly, that's what you seem to think science needs to do, otherwise evolution isn't a theory..

A bit extreme, don't you think? I agree to demand such would be both absurd and unrealistic.

[edit on 26-6-2007 by saint4God]

everyone should check out this site:

www.archaeologyinfo.com...

It's very informative!

timeline

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Vaccines are such a new phenomenon that some people believe they actually do more harm than good. The MMR vaccine for example.

I can't say how long vaccines have been around, because I don't know. As a guess I would say 50 to 100 years? The only thing about vaccines is that they do wonders for the person who gets them, supposedly.

Vaccine-preventable Diseases
Anthrax
Diphtheria
Hepatitis A
Hepatitis B
Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib)
Human Papillomavirus (HPV)
Influenza (Flu)
Japanese Encephalitis (JE)
Lyme Disease
Measles
Meningococcal
Monkeypox
Mumps
Pertussis (Whooping Cough)
Pneumococcal
Poliomyelitis (Polio)
Rabies
Rotavirus Rubella (German Measles)
Shingles (Herpes Zoster)
Smallpox
Tetanus (Lockjaw)
Tuberculosis
Typhoid Fever
Varicella (Chickenpox)
Yellow Fever

Yes, they work. I'm sure you'd gotten a few as a baby, maybe a few around age 12. They're saving lives everyday all around the world.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
However, If I have kids, my kids will not magically be immune to it. To say ''If evolution were true, then people would be born immune to diseases'' is absolutely ridiculous.

It's unrealistic but not ridiculous. Some evolutionists believe that evolution occurs because of foreign reagents introduced into the body. That reagent (like mitocondria) if found beneficial to the organism would then be incorporated into its genetic code through some sort of recombination. From that point forward, when the organism reproduces it would make sense that the offspring would carry the same resistances. But, is seems unrealistic because it does not happen (as you state here) therefore it is reasonable to conclude this form or piece of evolution simply does not exist.

[edit on 26-6-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by shihulud
If we evolve an immunity or even just acquire an immunity from a virus/disease then the virus/disease will then itself evolve into another virus/disease that we dont have an immunity for, its swings and roundabouts - plus the fact that virii and bacteria evolve a lot quicker than us means we are at a disadvantage in bevoming immune.

We've got to ask ourselves though "does this really happen?". The answer is "sometimes". Influenza is very good at changing. Polio not-so-much. That's why we have epidemics that are "wiped out" because the vaccinations are still valid for the unchanging virus/bacteria.

[edit on 26-6-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Lightstorm
Well, to all crationists and IDers, do you believe Pi=3.0?

No. Realizing of course that Pi is a subjective term associated with the constant we use in mathmatics.

Originally posted by Lightstorm
That's what the Bible says.

Where and why does this matter on this thread?

Originally posted by Lightstorm
So when are you going to court to have that Pi=3.0 taught in math classes of Public Schools?

See previous question before making assumptions.


[edit on 26-6-2007 by saint4God]

You want proof of evolution? look at any mammal outside. Eyes, Legs, Sex organs, Digestive track, Brain, its all there as it is in humans. Need more?

Originally posted by Termite197
everyone should check out this site:

www.archaeologyinfo.com...

It's very informative!

It's a good tutorial about fossil diversity. Beyond that it fails to address the points being brought up here.

Originally posted by Termite197
timeline

This timeline is inconsistent with the other link posted here, but it looks like proximity is the best we've got for now. Again though, misses all the meaty questions asked on the thread.

[edit on 26-6-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by blowfishdl
You want proof of evolution? look at any mammal outside. Eyes, Legs, Sex organs, Digestive track, Brain, its all there as it is in humans. Need more?

So where is this proof again? Want proof of an intelligent design? look at any mammal outside. Eyes, Legs, Sex organs, Digestive track, Brain, its all there as it is in humans. Sounds ridiculous, does it not?

[edit on 26-6-2007 by saint4God]