Anti-Evolution Legislation Shows Descent With Modification

originally posted by: NthOther
Show me the proof that says evolution is an indisputable fact.

The increasing bacterial resistance to antibiotics, even the strongest antibiotics. The only way, yes, the only way bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics is through evolution.

Then there's the whole genetic code thing, with broad commonality across species, clearly showing shared common evolutionary ancestors.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: peter vlar

Lol. So now my conception of "theory" is wrong?

Jesus, you win.

So what then do you believe a scientific theory entails? Do you believe that it is the same thing as a laymans theory? Anytime you want to demonstrate the holes in MES feel free. Anytime you want to present evidence in favor of another model, please do so. I eagerly await your step by step decimation of the fossil record, geologic column and especially the genetics that prove evolution from a common ancestor.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: spygeek

people keep being shown the indisputable proof

Like what? Show me the proof that says evolution is an indisputable fact. Produce it. Don't send a handful of obscure sources that you have to piece together and contort to fit your assumptions after the fact.

I can do that with God. It doesn't impress me.

So where's the journal article, eh? Where's the academic synthesis of evolution? Where's the observational data and laboratory reproduction meta-analysis?

They don't exist. It's bunk science they've used to sell you an ideology that makes you easy to control.

Insignificant, random mass of unintelligent matter.

The "Lenski Affair" is a pretty good example of this data and analysis you request being provided, and consequently flat out rejected by the creationist/id crowd.

Evolution is an observed, documented, researched and studied natural phenomenon. Nobody gains control of me by my being aware of this fact.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

So there's this one study that suggests A. And there's this other study that further supports A but also suggests B. And then there's another study that supports A and B, but is contradicted with C.

You see what I mean? Where is it? If it was as indisputable as everyone would like to think it is, where's the synthesis of it all? The "Unified Field Theory of Biology", if you will.

It doesn't exist. There are too many "missing links" and other unanswered questions to responsibly claim that it's a fact.

Yet that is precisely what's happening. Just chafes me, you know?

For an intelligent part of the species Americans can be really, really dumb. Join the human race for heaven's sake.

a reply to: spygeek

Did E. coli ever evolve into anything other than E. coli?

No. It mutated (predictably).

Not the same as a tyrannosaur turning into a hummingbird. It's suggestive of the possibility, and nothing more.

originally posted by: NthOther
There are too many "missing links" and other unanswered questions to responsibly claim that it's a fact.

Seems you are not aware that 'missing link' as you imagine it does not exist nor is needed to prove TOE being true?!

We have large amount of data in fossils and DNA that suggest 'gradual' changes in all life on earth.

Yet, you believe god created everything out of nothing, but to create one more thing he needed Adam's ribs... it takes lots of brain washing to make people believe that BS.

a reply to: NthOther

That comparison helps your case absolutely not at all. Did you even think about that when you wrote it?

Who has ever said that a tyrannosaurus became a hummingbird, ever, in history?

originally posted by: SuperFrog

We have large amount of data in fossils and DNA that suggest 'gradual' changes in all life on earth.

Suggests... suggests... suggests.

Suggestions are not facts. That's all evolution seems to me to be.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

So there's this one study that suggests A. And there's this other study that further supports A but also suggests B. And then there's another study that supports A and B, but is contradicted with C.

Have any examples of these papers beyond anecdotal incredulity?

You see what I mean? Where is it? If it was as indisputable as everyone would like to think it is, where's the synthesis of it all? The "Unified Field Theory of Biology", if you will.

There is, as I pointed out earlier, its called Modern Evolutionary Synthesis and new information is updated and added all the time as we learn more.

It doesn't exist. There are too many "missing links" and other unanswered questions to responsibly claim that it's a fact.

There are no missing links. Missing link is a falsity propped up by proponents of creationism. every single fossil is a transitional fossil.

Yet that is precisely what's happening. Just chafes me, you know?

Again, what are these unanswered questions? You just keep throwing your hands in the air and proclaiming the evolutionary theory is BS yet have provided nothing beyond incredulity to support that position. Please give tenable examples and I'm more than happy to address them.

originally posted by: Jonjonj

That comparison helps your case absolutely not at all. Did you even think about that when you wrote it?

Who has ever said that a tyrannosaurus became a hummingbird, ever, in history?

It's a generic analogy, man. Substitute chimps and humans. Swordfish and sasquatch. Whatever.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: Jonjonj

That comparison helps your case absolutely not at all. Did you even think about that when you wrote it?

Who has ever said that a tyrannosaurus became a hummingbird, ever, in history?

It's a generic analogy, man. Substitute chimps and humans. Swordfish and sasquatch. Whatever.

Well yes, you could substitute anything really, which is what you did, and which makes the comparison nonsensical. So if you are going to compare, make sense, this is a subject that requires sense, not idiotic comparisons between things as akin to each other as pebbles and boulders.

a reply to: NthOther

Then enlighten us. What's your answer if not evolutionary theory???

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: SuperFrog

We have large amount of data in fossils and DNA that suggest 'gradual' changes in all life on earth.

Suggests... suggests... suggests.

Suggestions are not facts. That's all evolution seems to me to be.

Either your little angry man in skies has strange humor, or this can be only explained by DNA and genetically.... which was the case...



Here, simple example of evolution .... or God was bored and did not know what to make out of simple animal?!

originally posted by: Jonjonj

Well yes, you could substitute anything really, which is what you did, and which makes the comparison nonsensical. So if you are going to compare, make sense, this is a subject that requires sense, not idiotic comparisons between things as akin to each other as pebbles and boulders.

But that's what you're doing--claiming a bacterial mutation may (there's that qualifying word again) contribute in some way to a biological process that creates entirely new forms of life. You are applying the micro to the macro in ways that aren't necessarily warranted.

I'm not denying that evolution may in fact be part of what's happening (or even all of it), but you run around acting like you know for a fact that it is (and that's all it is), when you have no way of knowing if that's really the case.

And you sell it as fact. As Truth. That's irresponsible and it's bad science. So much so that it ceases to be science and evolves into propaganda.

originally posted by: mOjOm

Then enlighten us. What's your answer if not evolutionary theory???

I don't have one. I personally don't think there even is one.

Nor do our biological origins have much relevance to how we should care for each other in the midst of a world that is slowly decaying around us because of our own arrogance and greed.

Ya know?

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: Jonjonj

Well yes, you could substitute anything really, which is what you did, and which makes the comparison nonsensical. So if you are going to compare, make sense, this is a subject that requires sense, not idiotic comparisons between things as akin to each other as pebbles and boulders.

But that's what you're doing--claiming a bacterial mutation may (there's that qualifying word again) contribute in some way to a biological process that creates entirely new forms of life. You are applying the micro to the macro in ways that aren't necessarily warranted.

I'm not denying that evolution may in fact be part of what's happening (or even all of it), but you run around acting like you know for a fact that it is (and that's all it is), when you have no way of knowing if that's really the case.

And you sell it as fact. As Truth. That's irresponsible and it's bad science. So much so that it ceases to be science and mutates into propaganda.

I don't know what you are talking about then, I thought I did, but I don't.

originally posted by: NthOther
So there's this one study that suggests A. And there's this other study that further supports A but also suggests B....

I never suggested any such thing. I simply provided two common sense and indisputable facts, in general knowledge, that prove evolution is happening, and has happened.

Simple.

originally posted by: NthOther
Did E. coli ever evolve into anything other than E. coli?

Evolution in real time

A professor at Michigan State University, Lenski has watched E. coli bacteria multiply through 59,000 generations, a span that has allowed him to observe evolution in real time. Since his Long-Term Experimental Evolution Project began in 1988, the bacteria have doubled in size, begun to mutate more quickly, and become more efficient at using the glucose in the solution where they’re grown.

More strikingly, however, he found that one of the 12 bacterial lines he has maintained has developed into what he believes is a new species, able to use a compound in the solution called citrate — a derivative of citric acid, like that found in some fruit — for food.

Theres a huge swath of science studying evolution in real time.

originally posted by: NthOther
Substitute chimps and humans.

No. And this proves your arguments are disingenuous. Humans did not evolve from apes (chimps), and anyone arguing the subject should know that, or stop arguing.