Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

a reply to: turbonium1

When science looked into how millions of different life forms were on Earth, the only theory they considered, and still consider today, is that all species on Earth were branched off one, or a few, original species, which were simple-celled organisms. The millions of species on Earth today are all from this one, or a few, ancestor species. Since then, all their efforts have gone into proving this theory is correct, and nothing else is considered but that theory.

Could you provide some evidence for that statement? Any biology books, magazines, whatever. Doesn't have to be a professional journal.

The fact is you don't understand science and how it works. Science is discovery and evidence. That's it. If you have evidence for you statements, please post them. Since this is a never-ending topic on this board, there are probably hundreds of supporting articles for evolution that have been posted ad infinitum.

Why don't you take up golf? I would be easier on your brain and good exercise to boot.

a reply to: Phantom423

Basic Physics don't exist in his world...

so golf is out...

a reply to: Akragon

Well...Physics really has nothing to do with golf. Golf is a mental game, you gotta be the ball.

a reply to: Observationalist

gravity has an effect on the ball correct?

He doesn't believe gravity exists

a reply to: Akragon

For sure Gravity is the friend and enemy of a golfer.

Anyway... it’s been a while since I have posted around here. I just though I’d poke my nose in. I’m a big golfer so I couldn’t resist.

Carry on.

a reply to: Observationalist

no worries... I love the game too

Just gottta understand what we're dealing with here...lol

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: turbonium1

When science looked into how millions of different life forms were on Earth, the only theory they considered, and still consider today, is that all species on Earth were branched off one, or a few, original species, which were simple-celled organisms. The millions of species on Earth today are all from this one, or a few, ancestor species. Since then, all their efforts have gone into proving this theory is correct, and nothing else is considered but that theory.

Could you provide some evidence for that statement? Any biology books, magazines, whatever. Doesn't have to be a professional journal.

The fact is you don't understand science and how it works. Science is discovery and evidence. That's it. If you have evidence for you statements, please post them. Since this is a never-ending topic on this board, there are probably hundreds of supporting articles for evolution that have been posted ad infinitum.

Why don't you take up golf? I would be easier on your brain and good exercise to boot.

Science should be about discovery and evidence, that's very true.

But this is clearly not actual 'science'.


What science ignores all the valid, available evidence? None, of course.

The main feature of a non-science, is to avoid all the valid evidence, as if it doesn't even exist.

Then, a non-science makes up it's own 'evidence', supporting another, completely false claim.


Such false claims are not acceptable, obviously.


But there is one more feature of a non-science, which changes it into 'science'.....


When all of the scientists agree, universally, that it IS an actual science. No doubts at all.


'Experts' all agree on it being actual, valid science - which makes it a 'science', from that point on.


Every scientist in the world cannot even all agree over our well-established laws of physics, on some level or other, and they have expressed those doubts in scientific papers, and so forth....

They are not afraid to question the status quo, or if it is scorned by peers, or what people say about him, or his views.

If scientists dispute the laws of physics, in some way, do you really believe evolution is overwhelmingly agreed on, by all the scientists?


Universal agreement is not about them accepting what is claimed, it is the very opposite.


Do you really believe when every scientist around the world has never raised doubts about manned moon landings being done 50 years ago, because every scientist around the world has believed we landed on the moon, back then. You think if any scientists doubted the moon landings happened, they'd say so.

Every one of those scientists who have never raised a doubt on manned moon landings, or that gravity doesn't exist, or that a force resists opposing forces....gravity can't resist an opposing force, so gravity doesn't exist as a force, to begin with...nobody mention it, okay?

a reply to: turbonium1

You forgot the evidence part. Scientists present evidence for their discoveries. That doesn't make their work set in stone. Science is always an open book.

When you say that scientists never agree on anything that isn't exactly how it works. A theoretical physicist will model his/her hypothesis, work out the mathematics and present it through publication. Remember, not all hypotheses can be tested. Albert Einstein developed his theories when there was no technology to test them. It wasn't until 1919 that Arthur Eddington proved Einstein's theory of relativity using light deflection during a solar eclipse.

The point is science is an additive process. We add new knowledge, subtract what was wrong, in an attempt to get at the fundamental truth of whatever it is we're studying. It doesn't matter whether it's genetics, evolution or mechanical engineering.

I would suggest that you select one subject that's readily available for study like classical physics. Study the history of Isaac Newton. Then move on to succeeding years where his work was expanded upon by others. This is an excellent article on mistakes made in the history of physics - don't forget we learn by our mistakes too - and scientists are no exception.

The Greatest Mistake In The History Of Physics

www.forbes.com...

We all love our most cherished ideas about how the world and the Universe works. Our conception of reality is often inextricably intertwined with our ideas of who we are. But to be a scientist is to be prepared to doubt all of it each and every time we put it to the test. All it takes is one observation, measurement, or experiment that conflicts with the predictions of your theory, and you have to consider revising or throwing out your picture of reality. If you can reproduce that scientific test and show, convincingly, that it is inconsistent with the prevailing theory, you've set the stage for a scientific revolution. But if you aren't willing to put your theory or assumption to the test, you might just make the greatest mistake in the history of physics.

It's human nature to have heroes: people we look up to, admire, and aspire to be like. In physics, the greatest hero for many centuries was Isaac Newton. Newton represented the pinnacle of the scientific achievements of humanity. His theory of universal gravitation described, faultlessly, everything from the motion of comets and planets and moons to how objects fell on Earth for centuries. His description of how objects moved, including his laws of motion and how they were influenced by forces and accelerations, remains valid under nearly all circumstances, even today. To challenge Newton was a fool's errand.

Which is why, in the early 19th century, the young French scientist, Augustin-Jean Fresnel, should have expected the trouble he was about to get into.

a reply to: turbonium1

You are attacking the credibility of scientific discipline without actually discrediting the results of such discipline. You haven't disproved a single fact of evolution.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: turbonium1

You forgot the evidence part. Scientists present evidence for their discoveries. That doesn't make their work set in stone. Science is always an open book.

When you say that scientists never agree on anything that isn't exactly how it works. A theoretical physicist will model his/her hypothesis, work out the mathematics and present it through publication. Remember, not all hypotheses can be tested. Albert Einstein developed his theories when there was no technology to test them. It wasn't until 1919 that Arthur Eddington proved Einstein's theory of relativity using light deflection during a solar eclipse.

The point is science is an additive process. We add new knowledge, subtract what was wrong, in an attempt to get at the fundamental truth of whatever it is we're studying. It doesn't matter whether it's genetics, evolution or mechanical engineering.

That's true, when it IS valid science. You fail to understand how evolution is not a valid science.

They propose a theory that all species on Earth are continually 'evolving into other, entirely different species.

So where would you start to look for such evidence of species continually 'evolving'?

Any idea? Hmm, where would we find if all species change into other species, as a continual process?


Hey! What about millions of species on Earth right now? Is that where we'd find if species continually evolve into other species? Indeed, this would be virtually endless evidence, available for all our researchers, splendidly, old chap.

Would the species over human history be evidence, too? Yes, indeed. In fact, we could compare all species from early human records, to the species of today, and see if any have 'evolved', or indicated if any were 'evolving'!


Ask yourself if any real science ignores the most overwhelming evidence, which would either prove, or would disprove, their theory?


That's not science, it's anti-science, my friend. Don't be in denial here.

a reply to: turbonium1

There's a lot of complexity to speciation. To understand how it works, you need to read the real science, how theories are developed, tested and results interpreted. This is a good place to start:

en.wikipedia.org...

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which populations evolve to become distinct species. The biologist Orator F. Cook coined the term in 1906 for cladogenesis, the splitting of lineages, as opposed to anagenesis, phyletic evolution within lineages.[1][2][3]

Charles Darwin was the first to describe the role of natural selection in speciation in his 1859 book The Origin of Species.[4] He also identified sexual selection as a likely mechanism, but found it problematic. There are four geographic modes of speciation in nature, based on the extent to which speciating populations are isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric.

Speciation may also be induced artificially, through animal husbandry, agriculture, or laboratory experiments. Whether genetic drift is a minor or major contributor to speciation is the subject matter of much ongoing discussion. Rapid sympatric speciation can take place through polyploidy, such as by doubling of chromosome number; the result is progeny which are immediately reproductively isolated from the parent population. New species can also be created through hybridisation followed, if the hybrid is favoured by natural selection, by reproductive isolation.

At the bottom of that page are 92 references where you can find the research around the topic. There's also an extensive bibliography.

You can't expect to understand something without studying the subject. I don't know how you've formulated your opinion, but the real science of evolution is documented in hundreds of research articles which go into great detail about the experiments.

An excellent example of speciation is dinosaurs evolving into birds. The research is extensive and well documented. Read the article below - it's a great learning tool.



How Dinosaurs Shrank and Became Birds
Modern birds appeared to emerge in a snap of evolutionary time. But new research illuminates the long series of evolutionary changes that made the transformation possible.
www.quantamagazine.org...

Modern birds descended from a group of two-legged dinosaurs known as theropods, whose members include the towering Tyrannosaurus rex and the smaller velociraptors. The theropods most closely related to avians generally weighed between 100 and 500 pounds — giants compared to most modern birds — and they had large snouts, big teeth, and not much between the ears. A velociraptor, for example, had a skull like a coyote’s and a brain roughly the size of a pigeon’s. For decades, paleontologists’ only fossil link between birds and dinosaurs was archaeopteryx, a hybrid creature with feathered wings but with the teeth and long bony tail of a dinosaur.

These animals appeared to have acquired their birdlike features — feathers, wings and flight — in just 10 million years, a mere flash in evolutionary time. “Archaeopteryx seemed to emerge fully fledged with the characteristics of modern birds,” said Michael Benton, a paleontologist at the University of Bristol in England. To explain this miraculous metamorphosis, scientists evoked a theory often referred to as “hopeful monsters.”

According to this idea, major evolutionary leaps require large-scale genetic changes that are qualitatively different from the routine modifications within a species. Only such substantial alterations on a short timescale, the story went, could account for the sudden transformation from a 300-pound theropod to the sparrow-size prehistoric bird Iberomesornis.

From thousands of species proven to exist on Earth, which are now extinct, none of them 'evolved' into another species.

And, of course, none of the many millions of species on Earth have shown any indication of 'evolving' into another species, over thousands of years.


What would be considered valid evidence that all species on Earth have 'evolved' from another species, and are continually 'evolving' into other species?

It's nonsense to claim extinct species have 'evolved' into other species, since thousands of species are overwhelming evidence, against none at all, on your side.


That's why your side ignores all the available, valid, provable evidence...

It assumes that extinct species have 'evolved' into other species, but only if the species are extinct before humans were not aware of those species, or if humans were not living on Earth, when those species became extinct!

Every species that became extinct before humans lived, or before humans knew about those species, must have 'evolved' into other species, over millions of years!!

I can prove that thousands of extinct species never 'evolved' into other species, while you cannot prove even ONE extinct species ever DID 'evolve' into another species...


And you go on and on, claiming to have evidence - which is completely absurd!


Do you have any idea what science is actually about? The foundation of all sciences?


Science has nothing to do with what scientists say, or claim, to be true, to be factual, to have proof, what is evidence, or what is not evidence....


Evidence is all that matters, to any sort of actual science. Not those who claim what is, or is not, evidence.


When all the scientists claimed smoking didn't cause cancer, the evidence proved it DID cause cancer.

If we all still believed the scientists were being honest, and truthful, we'd never have found out the ACTUAL truth, about smoking, right?

So why did we eventually find out that all the scientists were lying about smoking?

Because after all the overwhelming evidence over a few more years, their evil lie couldn't go on anymore. It was blatantly obvious to see the truth.

It should be a lesson to you, for it applies to this issue as well.

a reply to: turbonium1

All that ranting and you still haven't refuted even one fact in the theory of evolution, or posted any creationist facts of your own.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: turbonium1

All that ranting and you still haven't refuted even one fact in the theory of evolution, or posted any creationist facts of your own.

Every species on Earth is still the same species, that's the only fact here.

What fact is evolution based on? None.

It assumes extinct species have to be 'evolved' into other species, which is nonsense. DNA is common among all species on Earth today, which proves it has nothing to do with 'evolving' other species.

To argue that all species are continually 'evolving' into different species, when NO species today, or before, indicate ANY 'evolution' into another species, is truly a pathetic argument, on any level.

Rant all you want, that's the reality here.

a reply to: turbonium1

So... there was a horse that lived about 175k years ago that was about the size of a large cat... You're telling me that was the exact same species as the horses we have today

There was also a Rhino that was approx. the size of an elephant.... all the same species right?

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

So... there was a horse that lived about 175k years ago that was about the size of a large cat... You're telling me that was the exact same species as the horses we have today

There was also a Rhino that was approx. the size of an elephant.... all the same species right?

No, they are unique species, just as a housecat is not the same species as a tiger, or a lion.

Similar species don't indicate they all came from one 'ancestor' species. A housecat and a tiger are unique, different, species. They exist as separate species - they always have, and always will be, different, unique species.


Why do you have a housecat, and a tiger, which both exist today, as distinctly unique species, which did not 'evolve' from one into the other species?

If tigers were long extinct, you would claim housecats 'evolved' from tigers, over millions of years, which is the same argument you're making for any animals that are long extinct, as 'ancestors' of animals which exist today!!

Despite what the evidence shows, that a housecat is not an ancestor of a tiger, you will not accept this evidence, as it proves your entire argument is worthless.

a reply to: turbonium1

lol... coming from a flat earther of course...

And how do you explain Chihuahua?

All the evidence we have leads us to only one conclusion - that all species were created as those species, that they all have remained those species, and always will be those species. If the species becomes extinct, it ends that species, forever afterward.


What you are trying to do is suggest all the evidence is not true, does not matter, and in essence, that it does not even exist!


This isn't science- it is merely a bunch of fraudulent scientists that claim it is a science, while it is, in fact, the very opposite of any legitimate, valid science.


Why would all of those scientists look at all the evidence, which supports there was a creation of all species on Earth, and yet, completely dismiss, and ignore, all that evidence?

Not just some of these scientists, but rather, each and every one of those scientists, choose to dismiss, and ignore, this overwhelming evidence.

Universal agreement on any issue by itself, is unprecedented, when scientists are seeking answers, for any unresolved matters.

Seeking out how all species may have originated on Earth, how all species remain those species today, after thousands of years.....hardly suggests all those scientists would have reached ANY 100% universal agreement, even with the most overwhelming, unmatched body of evidence in human history, being quadrillions of examples to cite as proof, while there would normally be far less evidence supporting any other claim, and other claims have merit, which accepts the evidence, at least, instead of ignoring it all.

If you immediately assume that evolution of all species into other species has been well-established beforehand, it's easy to pick out countless papers supporting it.

They all assume evolution is true, which is absolute nonsense. The papers are crap, from the very start.


Why would all of those papers assume that evolution of all species on Earth have continually transformed themselves into completely different species? Because they can write a paper on identifying what species it 'evolved' from. Since all species already 'evolved' into other species, it's quite simple to link a species of today, with a long-extinct species.


All the long-extinct species allow for linking to living species, since long-extinct species cannot be proven to NOT 'evolve' into different species, and that's why 'evolution' takes only those long-extinct species, as 'evidence'!

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

lol... coming from a flat earther of course...

And how do you explain Chihuahua?

As more intelligent than you are, right?

a reply to: turbonium1

lol sure bud