Is There Evidence for Evolution? Show it to us.

a reply to: Murgatroid
Excellent information. You realize you are speaking of only two targeted individuals for the 'debunking' cascade shenanigans. There are other many sources/materials that exist which bolster these theories (hidden on purpose) from those that wish to erase or are afraid of the brutal facts regarding the true circumstances of the creation of the human (accidently or on purpose). Disclosure is not an option.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Because of THE CONSPIRACY!! Dun dun daa!

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Because of THE CONSPIRACY!! Dun dun daa!

I have no idea what you are speaking of; but I will play along.

What does any of this have to do with the facts I posted about shark evolution?

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: Barcs
Dolphins 'don't give sharks a hard time'. They HATE them; and as far as racial dominance as a "Swim-Swim specie" Dolphins are at the top of the *smart ladder/food chain*.

Who cares if Dolphins hate sharks? That doesn't make them top of the food chain and doesn't go against anything I said in my reponse above. Dolphins aren't fierce predators, they eat mostly squid and small fish. Sharks eat practically anything and everything. It's a like comparing a Lion to a chimpanzee.

Sharks lack compassion is all (or the ability to evolve)

Just making stuff up again? Compassion is the same as ability to evolve? What does this even mean? I'm sorry but survival > compassion, for any species.

Can you imagine a similar specie with the same relationship WE would have to deal with as another land based perfectly evolved creature (what would that look like)? I know the answer. Mako is tasty; a poor mans Swordfish.

You have no clue what you are talking bout. There is no such thing as a perfectly evolved creature. My points in my original post stand because instead of addressing them you changed the subject and danced around them. Nice try.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Thank you, you just made my day...

"The louder the opposition protests, the more I know I am on the right track." ~ Zorgon

The man who tells the truth is universally disliked by every person because every person has an agenda and is hiding behind a fantasy which the truth penetrates like an arrow and leaves him stripped naked before the whole universe, and he does not like that." ~ Milton William Cooper

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Because of THE CONSPIRACY!! Dun dun daa!

originally posted by: rnaa

If not for human benefit, then whose (or what?)

all mammals have this gene. So, all mammals are the beneficiary of the creative spark.

No, it is not. It is absolutely genetic.

you are overcomplicating things. If all mammalian babies can digest lactose, obviously the gene remains latent into maturity... But, because we chose to consume other mammal's milk, this gene remains turned on (epigenetics; please look it up before claiming epigenetics is not involved with genetics)

Epigenetics is an exciting 'new' area for research but it is really ignorant to think that it turns genetics on its head. There is no magic in epigenetics, it may provide some wonderful insights into phenomenon that were previously poorly understood, but it does not disprove genetics or provide a basis for you to wave your fingers over the keyboard and declare everything you think is wrong about evolution is accounted for by some magical triumph of "Lamarkianism" over "Darwinism". It just ain't gonna happen.

This has nothing to do with the fact that lactose digestion is dependent on epigenetic mechanisms.

Once more, 'evolution' means 'change over time'. Nothing more, nothing less.

But "change over time" would include epigenetic mechanisms... which makes your statement completely false. STOP PREACHING EVOLUTION WHEN YOU CAN'T DISAMBIGUATE BETWEEN EPIGENETICS AND EVOLUTION.

If an epigenetic process results in a 'permanent' change (that is, generational, passed on from parent to offspring) in the expression of particular genes or the proteins or whatever, then that is an evolutionary process.

No, it is an adaptation mechanism present in many organisms which were with us from the beginning. When I go to higher elevations, the Oxygen levels are different, so my body adapts to that by expressing different genes, specifically 2,3-BPG, accordingly.... This is not evolution, this is adaptation. You sheep follow the basic concepts of evolution and you'd run off the cliff with them! Anyone doing deeper research will eventually realize nothing has evolved in recorded history. Hence, to answer the question of this thread, there is no direct evidence that a given organism can evolve, over time, into a phenotypically more successful organism.

But the mindless sleep-walkers assimilate popular "scientific" rhetoric because they are disappointed with the "God" they were raised to believe in. Wake the # up, and follow your own path, and it will all make sense. Scientific Dogma is just as oppressive as religious dogma is. It is up to you to figure out the answers, the truth cannot be crammed into the ears of the non-willing. For those with ears...

a reply to: cooperton

Coop, you are wrong on the adaptation/evolution statement:

1. Adaptation is short-term change (via gene expression) in response to environmental factors; it does not (usually) involve permanent genetic change. (Caution: recall epigenesis!)

1. Organic Evolution is a shift in allele frequencies in a population (microevolution) which can ultimately lead to speciation (macroevolution) under certain circumstances.

Individuals ADAPTATIONS. (They do not evolve.)
Populations EVOLVE.

Only evolution involves overall change in allele frequencies and genetic composition of the main unit of evolution: the population.

Mutations affecting the germ (spermatogonial or oogonial) cells are the only mutations with evolutionary consequences.

Only germline mutations can be passed on to future generations. Somatic mutations can result in phenotypes from differing color patches to cancer.

In short, adaptation can be temporary or long-lived. If an adaptation persists to an extent that it changes the germline PERMANENTLY in a population, then that is evolution.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Coop, you are wrong on the adaptation/evolution statement:

1. Adaptation is short-term change (via gene expression) in response to environmental factors; it does not (usually) involve permanent genetic change. (Caution: recall epigenesis!)

1. Organic Evolution is a shift in allele frequencies in a population (microevolution) which can ultimately lead to speciation (macroevolution) under certain circumstances.

Individuals ADAPTATIONS. (They do not evolve.)
Populations EVOLVE.

Only evolution involves overall change in allele frequencies and genetic composition of the main unit of evolution: the population.

Mutations affecting the germ (spermatogonial or oogonial) cells are the only mutations with evolutionary consequences.

Only germline mutations can be passed on to future generations. Somatic mutations can result in phenotypes from differing color patches to cancer.

In short, adaptation can be temporary or long-lived. If an adaptation persists to an extent that it changes the germline PERMANENTLY in a population, then that is evolution.

A good response, but actually contemplate this... Do you think random happen-stance could be the explanation for the immense complexity of, for example, the human? Let alone the human eyeball??? Let alone the human retina? Do you think random mutations eventually led to the ability to ascertain color in an intuitive way that was passed along to the occipital lobe to be discerned into an intelligible image? How much time would be required for random chance to evolve the rod/cone cells of the retina via successive mutation? while simultaneously fabricating rhodopsin to allow light-to-night transition which is harmonious with these given cells, that so happen to align perfectly so that cone cells aggregate within the fovea.

The ONLY problem with believing in evolution is that it makes some complacent, and believe that there is nothing to be pursued in our lifetime... the only thing any theist should be encouraging is a continual search for the answers... never give up the search

a reply to: Murgatroid
I am thrilled you both have found a common ground at last (even if at my expense); its a positive (let the good times continue).

originally posted by: Barcs

Barcs:
What does any of this have to do with the facts I posted about shark evolution?
Who cares if Dolphins hate sharks? That doesn't make them top of the food chain and doesn't go against anything I said in my reponse above. Dolphins aren't fierce predators, they eat mostly squid and small fish. Sharks eat practically anything and everything. It's a like comparing a Lion to a chimpanzee.

I KNOW and feel the same regard for those that are not fierce, that is part of the problem (sharks just stubbornly refuse to evolve); auto pilot instinct (did I just say they have instincts)? More succinct: no discriminatory skills. I asked you before, name or invent a land specie similar to the shark that resembles a human; many rows of teeth the human would have be politically correct with; knowing its *auto pilot* limitations.

Barcs: You have no clue what you are talking bout. There is no such thing as a perfectly evolved creature. My points in my original post stand because instead of addressing them you changed the subject and danced around them. Nice try.

When how and where did the human last evolve say within the last 10,000 years. You cannot avoid the fact *sharks* need an improvement regarding their vision; an enterprising opthamologist could make a fortune specializing fitting them with glasses. Flash card study (this is a seal, this is a surfboard).

a reply to: TzarChasm
A well placed humor relief moment, deterred me and my crood brood from building a monumental Castle Keep around my dwelling last night.

originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: Phantom423

cooperton: The ONLY problem with believing in evolution is that it makes some complacent, and believe that there is nothing to be pursued in our lifetime... the only thing any theist should be encouraging is a continual search for the answers... never give up the search

Complacent in this sense: we become victims of evolution; so are through 'science' continually correcting perceived problems of the body/mind like a mechanic working on a piece of machinery. There is no mystery or wonder at the achievement of those that created (NO CREDIT GIVEN) it: or explanation/curiosity for this *accidental*? (highly unlikely) living being existing in the first place.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Coop, you are wrong on the adaptation/evolution statement:

1. Adaptation is short-term change (via gene expression) in response to environmental factors; it does not (usually) involve permanent genetic change. (Caution: recall epigenesis!)

1. Organic Evolution is a shift in allele frequencies in a population (microevolution) which can ultimately lead to speciation (macroevolution) under certain circumstances.

Individuals ADAPTATIONS. (They do not evolve.)
Populations EVOLVE.

Only evolution involves overall change in allele frequencies and genetic composition of the main unit of evolution: the population.

Mutations affecting the germ (spermatogonial or oogonial) cells are the only mutations with evolutionary consequences.

Only germline mutations can be passed on to future generations. Somatic mutations can result in phenotypes from differing color patches to cancer.

In short, adaptation can be temporary or long-lived. If an adaptation persists to an extent that it changes the germline PERMANENTLY in a population, then that is evolution.

A good response, but actually contemplate this... Do you think random happen-stance could be the explanation for the immense complexity of, for example, the human? Let alone the human eyeball??? Let alone the human retina? Do you think random mutations eventually led to the ability to ascertain color in an intuitive way that was passed along to the occipital lobe to be discerned into an intelligible image? How much time would be required for random chance to evolve the rod/cone cells of the retina via successive mutation? while simultaneously fabricating rhodopsin to allow light-to-night transition which is harmonious with these given cells, that so happen to align perfectly so that cone cells aggregate within the fovea.

The ONLY problem with believing in evolution is that it makes some complacent, and believe that there is nothing to be pursued in our lifetime... the only thing any theist should be encouraging is a continual search for the answers... never give up the search

No, random happen-stance is not an accurate depiction of evolution. I understand that the word "random" is used occasionally, but as my post said, these are adaptations which precipitate mutations. That's why I dislike the picture of a flow chart showing small apes progressing to bigger apes and eventually to man. It gives the wrong impression. You know that there's a lot more going on in between those "apes"!. These are population-wide events, not individual. When the germ cells in a population change and become inheritable, then you have evolution.

The evolution of the eye is a case in point. If you read the history carefully, you'll see that organisms adapted some form of "vision" to satisfy a requirement in their environment. As the adaptation because necessary throughout a population, the germ cells changed to pass on the new gene to future generations. If you think about it, it's a convenient way to maintain any adaptation which flows through a population because adaptations can disappear as well as accumulate. So why wouldn't nature come up with a mechanism to retain it and pass it on? That's evolution. Remember also, that some can be good and some can be bad genomic changes. The eye is an example of a very necessary change which needed to persist throughout populations.

As far as theists are concerned, why couldn't a god have designed evolution and the trail of events which I just described? No one ever said that ID was impossible. Scientists just say there's no way to test it. You can't bring a sample into the lab and analyze it. You can only make assumptions based on your observations. Remember Darwin didn't have a lab where he could test his observations - he could only report them. It took several hundred years for scientists to verify and expand on his observations. If the time comes when some scientist in the future can say: "I found the hard evidence for a creator and I can prove it in the lab" - then you have something to bite into. But no one - don't care if it's Dawkins or some other scientist who publishes in the media - can say definitively whether there is or isn't a creator.

originally posted by: Phantom423

A good response, but actually contemplate this... Do you think random happen-stance could be the explanation for the immense complexity of, for example, the human? Let alone the human eyeball??? Let alone the human retina? Do you think random mutations eventually led to the ability to ascertain color in an intuitive way that was passed along to the occipital lobe to be discerned into an intelligible image? How much time would be required for random chance to evolve the rod/cone cells of the retina via successive mutation? while simultaneously fabricating rhodopsin to allow light-to-night transition which is harmonious with these given cells, that so happen to align perfectly so that cone cells aggregate within the fovea.

The ONLY problem with believing in evolution is that it makes some complacent, and believe that there is nothing to be pursued in our lifetime... the only thing any theist should be encouraging is a continual search for the answers... never give up the search

No, random happen-stance is not an accurate depiction of evolution. I understand that the word "random" is used occasionally, but as my post said, these are adaptations which precipitate mutations. That's why I dislike the picture of a flow chart showing small apes progressing to bigger apes and eventually to man. It gives the wrong impression. You know that there's a lot more going on in between those "apes"!. These are population-wide events, not individual. When the germ cells in a population change and become inheritable, then you have evolution.

The evolution of the eye is a case in point. If you read the history carefully, you'll see that organisms adapted some form of "vision" to satisfy a requirement in their environment. As the adaptation because necessary throughout a population, the germ cells changed to pass on the new gene to future generations. If you think about it, it's a convenient way to maintain any adaptation which flows through a population because adaptations can disappear as well as accumulate. So why wouldn't nature come up with a mechanism to retain it and pass it on? That's evolution. Remember also, that some can be good and some can be bad genomic changes. The eye is an example of a very necessary change which needed to persist throughout populations.



A reason that the theory of evolution will always persist, in my opinion, is because there can always be an explanation for everything; just add an unimaginable length of time... and viola! Creationism, being much more abstract, can easily be mocked, ridiculed, and made to look illogical. Not to mention creationism is not even taught in most catholic schools! Not to mention most people haven't even read the Bible, etc, etc.

If I were playing devil's advocate, I could defend any aspect of evolution to my grave, but there are certain experiences I have had which insist that the universe has some sort of intelligence behind it. Was evolution part of the intelligent process? Possibly. And like I said, I think the important part is to realize that there is something more to life than a lucky spark of consciousness.

This is why I get so excited about our ancestors describing dinosaurs in art and written history... It is a monkey wrench in evolutionary theory... Insisting that something is amiss in our contemporary world view

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

A good response, but actually contemplate this... Do you think random happen-stance could be the explanation for the immense complexity of, for example, the human? Let alone the human eyeball??? Let alone the human retina? Do you think random mutations eventually led to the ability to ascertain color in an intuitive way that was passed along to the occipital lobe to be discerned into an intelligible image? How much time would be required for random chance to evolve the rod/cone cells of the retina via successive mutation? while simultaneously fabricating rhodopsin to allow light-to-night transition which is harmonious with these given cells, that so happen to align perfectly so that cone cells aggregate within the fovea.

The ONLY problem with believing in evolution is that it makes some complacent, and believe that there is nothing to be pursued in our lifetime... the only thing any theist should be encouraging is a continual search for the answers... never give up the search

No, random happen-stance is not an accurate depiction of evolution. I understand that the word "random" is used occasionally, but as my post said, these are adaptations which precipitate mutations. That's why I dislike the picture of a flow chart showing small apes progressing to bigger apes and eventually to man. It gives the wrong impression. You know that there's a lot more going on in between those "apes"!. These are population-wide events, not individual. When the germ cells in a population change and become inheritable, then you have evolution.

The evolution of the eye is a case in point. If you read the history carefully, you'll see that organisms adapted some form of "vision" to satisfy a requirement in their environment. As the adaptation because necessary throughout a population, the germ cells changed to pass on the new gene to future generations. If you think about it, it's a convenient way to maintain any adaptation which flows through a population because adaptations can disappear as well as accumulate. So why wouldn't nature come up with a mechanism to retain it and pass it on? That's evolution. Remember also, that some can be good and some can be bad genomic changes. The eye is an example of a very necessary change which needed to persist throughout populations.

A reason that the theory of evolution will always persist, in my opinion, is because there can always be an explanation for everything; just add an unimaginable length of time... and viola! Creationism, being much more abstract, can easily be mocked, ridiculed, and made to look illogical. Not to mention creationism is not even taught in most catholic schools! Not to mention most people haven't even read the Bible, etc, etc.

If I were playing devil's advocate, I could defend any aspect of evolution to my grave, but there are certain experiences I have had which insist that the universe has some sort of intelligence behind it. Was evolution part of the intelligent process? Possibly. And like I said, I think the important part is to realize that there is something more to life than a lucky spark of consciousness.

This is why I get so excited about our ancestors describing dinosaurs in art and written history... It is a monkey wrench in evolutionary theory... Insisting that something is amiss in our contemporary world view

But there's one thing you're forgetting: statistics and repeatability. One of the hallmarks of good science is repeatability. Based on the art and documentation, there's no doubt that people saw something. Was it a dinosaur? Who knows? It could have been one of those monster crocs or alligators that we still see from time to time in the press.
Now to the hard evidence: The find in Texas of a "shoe" on top of an allosaur - even if it is authentic (and we can't know this), there would have be at least multiple finds of the same composition where evidence of a human and an allosaur cohabitated in the same time period. If there are no other specimens or very few specimens of indeterminate origin, then the original find is attributed to an anomaly that can't be verified. That's how science works. But that doesn't mean that a scientist may pick up on the find and say, hey, I saw something like this before in the museum archive, or I think they overlooked something - I'm going to follow it up. Stranger stuff has been found with a second look.

When you say "there's always an explanation for everything" you must realize that there are thousands (156,000+) research projects with various aspects of evolution that have statistical significance and can be repeated. That's not just an explanation for everything. Those are explanations and expansions on current knowledge.

I will never say that there is no possibility for a designer or no possibility of a human concurrent with a dinosaur. The probability distribution however is extremely low. And as the American lady in the advert says: "Where's the beef???"

a reply to: Phantom423
Where is, and why will IT not; as the 'designer' proclaim itself as Origin of all Specie? Is this a human problem, demanding its reveal or one based upon a faith ideal that humans cannot meet (enough so to actually pop/imagine God into this realm/existence).

originally posted by: Phantom423


I will never say that there is no possibility for a designer or no possibility of a human concurrent with a dinosaur. The probability distribution however is extremely low. And as the American lady in the advert says: "Where's the beef???"

Pardon me if you have already looked at these links, but here is a good collection of beef:

Dragon Art
Dragons in history

This is only the tip of the iceberg. I urge any scientist to look into this with an unbiased mind

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423


I will never say that there is no possibility for a designer or no possibility of a human concurrent with a dinosaur. The probability distribution however is extremely low. And as the American lady in the advert says: "Where's the beef???"

Pardon me if you have already looked at these links, but here is a good collection of beef:

Dragon Art
Dragons in history

This is only the tip of the iceberg. I urge any scientist to look into this with an unbiased mind

I don't disagree with you. I think it has been explored already, but certainly if a scientist sees something that may challenge the existing interpretation of what it is, then more power to him/her. That's how knowledge is acquired.
It's not my field, so I'm not a candidate! But never say never.....and that's the beauty of real science - someone picks up the ball and runs with it. That's why we have had so much expansion of knowledge of quantum mechanics. Scientists said - this is worthwhile to investigate - and that's what they did.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I can't answer because I don't understand your question. If you can clarify, I will give it my best effort.