What is evolution, not what some think

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

He keeps insisting on being provided with evidence and then when evidence is provided he dismisses it. Again and again and again. It's insulting now. I can't believe that he's so stupid as to fail to understand this information. If he wants to desperately cling to his book of myths, then fair enough. He should say so, openly. But he shouldn't continue making his ridiculous claim that there is no evidence for evolution. He's trolling us.

I am wondering if you read what I post.
I dont want evidence, your evidence isnt good enough, I thought I made that clear

a reply to: borntowatch

And that is why we are dismissing you as ignorant.
No amount of evidence would be enough for you.
Iam out.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: borntowatch

And that is why we are dismissing you as ignorant.
No amount of evidence would be enough for you.
Iam out.

Seriously, I doubt it.
If you are congratulations, it only took 36 pages for you to realise I dont accept evolution as it stands, any of them.

I am surprised you even tried to teach me your beliefs

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

He keeps insisting on being provided with evidence and then when evidence is provided he dismisses it. Again and again and again. It's insulting now. I can't believe that he's so stupid as to fail to understand this information. If he wants to desperately cling to his book of myths, then fair enough. He should say so, openly. But he shouldn't continue making his ridiculous claim that there is no evidence for evolution. He's trolling us.

I am wondering if you read what I post.
I dont want evidence, your evidence isnt good enough, I thought I made that clear

Viola. Got you. Condemned out of your own mouth. "Your evidence isn't good enough"???? That is arrogant beyond words. So what is a standard of evidence that you'll accept? Only the bits that support your case? That's not evidence, that's bias. So - you'll only accept evidence that supports your case. How impartial of you! How reasonable of you!
No. Why the hell should we continue to play your games? You don't believe in evolution and you refuse to listen to, let alone comprehend, the vast amount of evidence that supports it. Fine. Acknowledge that you either don't understand it or that you refuse to believe it and that you distrust clear, testable, scientifically derived, evidence. But don't keep coming back here and wailing about how there really is no evidence for evolution. It has been provided to you.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: borntowatch

And that is why we are dismissing you as ignorant.
No amount of evidence would be enough for you.
Iam out.

Seriously, I doubt it.
If you are congratulations, it only took 36 pages for you to realise I dont accept evolution as it stands, any of them.

I am surprised you even tried to teach me your beliefs

This is another example of supreme arrogance. And another reason why this entire thread has been you trolling us. We have tried to educate you by providing you with evidence. Not 'beliefs' - you have beliefs, we have evidence. And you're surprised that we tried to provide evidence at all? YOU called on people for said evidence! Your hypocrisy is astonishing! Right - enough is enough.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg


Viola. Got you. Condemned out of your own mouth. "Your evidence isn't good enough"???? That is arrogant beyond words. So what is a standard of evidence that you'll accept? Only the bits that support your case? That's not evidence, that's bias. So - you'll only accept evidence that supports your case. How impartial of you! How reasonable of you!
No. Why the hell should we continue to play your games? You don't believe in evolution and you refuse to listen to, let alone comprehend, the vast amount of evidence that supports it. Fine. Acknowledge that you either don't understand it or that you refuse to believe it and that you distrust clear, testable, scientifically derived, evidence. But don't keep coming back here and wailing about how there really is no evidence for evolution. It has been provided to you.

there really is no evidence for evolution

Its so sad that you think I must conform to your beliefs, I dont

Dont play the game, shake your head and just move on, why do you have to brow beat me, we disagree, get over it.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

He keeps insisting on being provided with evidence and then when evidence is provided he dismisses it. Again and again and again. It's insulting now. I can't believe that he's so stupid as to fail to understand this information. If he wants to desperately cling to his book of myths, then fair enough. He should say so, openly. But he shouldn't continue making his ridiculous claim that there is no evidence for evolution. He's trolling us.

I am wondering if you read what I post.
I dont want evidence, your evidence isnt good enough, I thought I made that clear

Viola. Got you. Condemned out of your own mouth. "Your evidence isn't good enough"???? That is arrogant beyond words. So what is a standard of evidence that you'll accept? Only the bits that support your case? That's not evidence, that's bias. So - you'll only accept evidence that supports your case. How impartial of you! How reasonable of you!
No. Why the hell should we continue to play your games? You don't believe in evolution and you refuse to listen to, let alone comprehend, the vast amount of evidence that supports it. Fine. Acknowledge that you either don't understand it or that you refuse to believe it and that you distrust clear, testable, scientifically derived, evidence. But don't keep coming back here and wailing about how there really is no evidence for evolution. It has been provided to you.

Viola!
What, you just worked that out, 36 odd pages
Your evidence is not acceptable to me, most of the evidence I have read was "We dont know"

I dont believe dna coding is something that can arise out of the mud, pffft

It really is that simple

I dont believe that a Big Bang just so happened

I could go on.....but hey

originally posted by: borntowatch
there really is no evidence for evolution

Its so sad that you think I must conform to your beliefs, I dont

Dont play the game, shake your head and just move on, why do you have to brow beat me, we disagree, get over it.

Right....

necsi.edu...
necsi.edu...
necsi.edu...
necsi.edu...
evolution.berkeley.edu...
evolution.berkeley.edu...
evolution.berkeley.edu...
evolution.berkeley.edu...


I am more and more sure that you are just trolling... at first you went all out to find if people think like you, but now you are just trolling and playing blind ignorance games... well done!

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg


Viola. Got you. Condemned out of your own mouth. "Your evidence isn't good enough"???? That is arrogant beyond words. So what is a standard of evidence that you'll accept? Only the bits that support your case? That's not evidence, that's bias. So - you'll only accept evidence that supports your case. How impartial of you! How reasonable of you!
No. Why the hell should we continue to play your games? You don't believe in evolution and you refuse to listen to, let alone comprehend, the vast amount of evidence that supports it. Fine. Acknowledge that you either don't understand it or that you refuse to believe it and that you distrust clear, testable, scientifically derived, evidence. But don't keep coming back here and wailing about how there really is no evidence for evolution. It has been provided to you.

there really is no evidence for evolution

Its so sad that you think I must conform to your beliefs, I dont

Dont play the game, shake your head and just move on, why do you have to brow beat me, we disagree, get over it.

You're the one playing games. Evidence for evolution has been provided on this thread. Superfrog just added more. But according to you none of that is worth anything as ONLY your standard for evidence seems to be valid. Evolution is not a game. It is a theory that has a vast amount of scientific support. Does it have all the answers? Of course not, don't be silly. Nothing has all the answers. And yet you continue to insist that there is no evidence at all behind evolution. Arrogant much?

a reply to: borntowatch

oh dear - creationist dishonesty knows no bounds

I shal quote first from the OP .

Yes I agree with Micro evolution.

now we have a volte face with

there really is no evidence for evolution

can anyone say - mind numbing dichotomy ?

Barcs,
The main problem, as I see it, is the amount of complex fossils we find at the beginning of the Cambrian period.
Are there Pre Cambrian fossils of complex organism? Yes, but they are low in number and some are considered to be totally unrelated to life we see in the Cambrian.
Now if evolution has it right we should see a place where life started branching out, with a dence population. From that point, as these life forms branch out, evolve and speciate we should be able to track this in the fossil record. Yet, this is not what we see. What we actually see is a HUGE amount of diversity, all over the globe, at the beginning of the Cambrian, hence The Cambrian "Explosion".
You also claim that the fossil record backs evolution 100%. As you know, I disagree with that as most of what we think we know is hypothetical.
We have found millions of fossils. The record shows that there has always been a huge diversification of life. Evolution also has to use L.C.A. to make it believable, yet we can not pinpoint one of the fossils we have found as being a L.C.A. between species.
Speaking of species, it would seem as we learn more and get a better understanding of evolution that terms like "species" would become better defined. Yet, they do not. The terms have to expand to explain more information that was not predicted. It is my honest opinion that, as a whole, the theory has become bloated and no longer constitutes a "good" theory. After all, the hallmark of a good theory is the simplicity of it. a reply to: Barcs

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Barc,
The main problem, as I see it, is the amount of complex fossils we find at the beginning of the Cambrian period.
Are there Pre Cambrian fossils of complex organism? Yes, but they are low in number and some are considered to be totally unrelated to life we see in the Cambrian.
Now if evolution has it right we should see a place where life started branching out, with a dence population. From that point, as these life forms branch out, evolve and speciate we should be able to track this in the fossil record. Yet, this is not what we see. What we actually see is a HUGE amount of diversity, all over the globe, at the beginning of the Cambrian, hence The Cambrian "Explosion".

Diversity of Cambrian period does support ToE, not sure where you got your idea that it goes against it. It was largely debated on small amount of fossils from pre-Cambrian period what was there before so called explosion happened, but as more and more fossils were found, we are now sure that diversity started in pre-Cambrian era.

For example, this article covers one of species: www.nature.com...

originally posted by: Quadrivium
You also claim that the fossil record backs evolution 100%. As you know, I disagree with that as most of what we think we know is hypothetical.

ToE is not hypothetical... it does not matter if you agree or disagree...

originally posted by: QuadriviumWe have found millions of fossils. The record shows that there has always been a huge diversification of life. Evolution also has to use L.C.A. to make it believable, yet we can not pinpoint one of the fossils we have found as being a L.C.A. between species.
Speaking of species, it would seem as we learn more and get a better understanding of evolution that terms like "species" would become better defined. Yet, they do not. The terms have to expand to explain more information that was not predicted. It is my honest opinion that, as a whole, the theory has become bloated and no longer constitutes a "good" theory. After all, the hallmark of a good theory is the simplicity of it.

O my.... no links between... there are many links between... but let's just go step back... how fossils gets created, what we have fossilized and does it prove that theory of evolution stands?

Very small amount of organism get fossilized, but those that do, we can follow evolutionary steps between them. Thanks to this, scientist were able to predict at what time we would find different fossils - for example, size of human brain in our ancestors - and then just recently we found some that match criteria and prediction. Today we know that our ancestors shared earth with 2 different species and that we even mixed with them. Just look at recently where we now have evidence that one of those mixing with different species is what helped people living around Himalaya to survive harsh high altitude environment.

www.nature.com...

Wonder, how come none of this facts was found in any of 'holy books'... no even mention of 99.9 of life being killed in multiple events of global extinction... and we have huge amount of material that shows when and how did those extinction happen. I have a post on different topic with some very nice videos that cover all extinction events and what is believed to be cause of some of them. Let me know if you like me to find it...

originally posted by: Quadrivium
After all, the hallmark of a good theory is the simplicity of it.

No... The hallmark of a good theory is one that can accurately predict new events based on the collected evidence so far. The theory of evolution does do that. Nothing in science says that a theory has to be simple or easy to understand. That is absurd. Reality is complicated, therefore the theories that define it have to be complicated.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

A bird growing a longer beak is not a bird turning in to another animal.

Thats like saying a european has evolved in to an asian.
They/we are human, different but human.

To see a european develop the ability to breathe underwater, or an asian adapt to radiation, thats evolution.
Not beak size or skin colour, curly hair or straight

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Quadrivium
After all, the hallmark of a good theory is the simplicity of it.

No... The hallmark of a good theory is one that can accurately predict new events based on the collected evidence so far. The theory of evolution does do that. Nothing in science says that a theory has to be simple or easy to understand. That is absurd. Reality is complicated, therefore the theories that define it have to be complicated.

Superfrog, Would you like to respond to krazyshot, or would you rather me do it? It would be nice to see someone who supports evolution correct someone else who supports it in these threads.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Scientific theory

A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested.

Usually, theories (in the scientific sense) are large bodies of work that are a composite of the products of many contributors over time and are substantiated by vast bodies of converging evidence. They unify and synchronize the scientific community's view and approach to a particular scientific field. For example, biology has the theory of evolution and cell theory, geology has plate tectonic theory and cosmology has the Big Bang. The development of theories is a key element of the scientific method as they are used to make predictions about the world; if these predictions fail, the theory is revised. Theories are the main goal in science and no explanation can achieve a higher "rank" (contrary to the belief that "theories" become "laws" over time).

Yes, I'm totally wrong... *rolls eyes* Nothing about being simple in there though.

originally posted by: borntowatch
a reply to: ignorant_ape

A bird growing a longer beak is not a bird turning in to another animal.

Thats like saying a european has evolved in to an asian.
They/we are human, different but human.

To see a european develop the ability to breathe underwater, or an asian adapt to radiation, thats evolution.
Not beak size or skin colour, curly hair or straight

(Facepalm)
Actually, if you want to be picky, Africans have already evolved into Asians. Homo Sapiens, remember?

Why are we still commenting on this thread? Borntowatch has already announced that only he gets to set the standard for credible evidence, so we're all just wasting our time here. He refuses to admit that science could be right about evolution.

originally posted by: borntowatch
a reply to: ignorant_ape

A bird growing a longer beak is not a bird turning in to another animal.

Thats like saying a european has evolved in to an asian.
They/we are human, different but human.

To see a european develop the ability to breathe underwater, or an asian adapt to radiation, thats evolution.
Not beak size or skin colour, curly hair or straight

No, as AngryCymraeg has already pointed out, we both evolved from our ancestor that originated in Afrika, and thanks to different climate and environment we have different races of humans.

How about this little creature??




It will not take a long before we can undo some of evolution doings... for example, today we know that today's chicken have T-Rex as ancestor - witch means that genes from chicken also include genes from their ancestors... Scientist are working on changing those genes that evolution has changed through millions of years, switching them back will give for example chicken hands, tail and teeth that once its ancestor had...

Here is very interesting Ted talk - Jack Horner: Building a dinosaur from a chicken

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Superfrog, Would you like to respond to krazyshot, or would you rather me do it? It would be nice to see someone who supports evolution correct someone else who supports it in these threads.

He (krazyshot) was right, you really had no idea what really 'theory' means in science - it is not hypothesis, but proven concept that can be tested.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

You have to understand that Borntowatch denies the assumptions of evolution. He only accepts solid evidence and proven facts, like an ancient book of myths and legends from thousands of years ago. Evolution does not have this book, so it has no evidence.

Krazyshot,
Actually, you are wrong. "Simple" and "simplicity" are too different things. I did not say a theory should be simple.
I said that "the hallmark of a good theory is the simplicity of it".
I do not understand how you and Superfrog are even able to debate evolution when you do not know that scientist should strive for simplicity within theories.
And Superfrog,
What's this about me not knowing the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? Is it because I said that scientists apply the hypothetical L.C.A. to the fossil record in order for evolution to work?
Please pin point one fossil that they have declared to be the actual L.C.A. in any species, or genus.
I honestly believe that some proponents of evolution actually have absolutely no idea how science works. They are just more concerned about being right.