Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


You said you've addressed all of our posts.. But you conveniently dismissed mine, which plainly lays out your misunderstandings with evolution. Here is the quote from my previous and only post in the thread:

You've essentially just chosen the known hoaxes and quack science that has been used to "prove" that evolution is real. There is at the very least an equal and probably much more abundant number of hoaxes and lies that have been used to support and prove Christianity and religions in general.

Evolution, like so many other words, has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena". The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence AGAINST evolution.

So what is your response to that? You still honestly believe that Evolution doesn't exist? You're bent on believing that evolution deals only with common origin, when IT DOES NOT.. That is a tiny tiny aspect of evolution in general.

reply to post by ZiggyMojo


He's totally going to address your points. And when I say "address your points," I mean he'll repeat the original claim and pretend you never said it and then claim he did.

reply to post by Barcs


I'm surprised this thread is still active. It doesn't take that long to link a PDF of the latest in evolutionary research. The argument should have been settled long ago. It's not like Serenity started out with a great argument anyway. Good job taking out the stray scouts, but there's still an entire fortress to be tackled.

reply to post by ZiggyMojo


Bringing up religion is not really pertinent to this topic so I am not dealing with that issue. I have dealt with the issues of probability and what is necessary for life and biological functioning. The probabilities of proteins coming together by chance are so impossibly remote that scientists have admitted that it's not going to happen by chance.

Every experiment to create life out of non-life has failed, and thus that has proven a problem in the "how life began" aspect.

The fact that species evolve WITHIN the species has not been in question. That is called adaptation and natural selection of which Darwin was correct.

The issue of species changing from one kind to another is what is in question, and what the issue of the hoaxes and disproved intermediate links has been shown to prove there is no evidence of this sort of change. Birds are still birds, fish are still fish, dogs are still dogs, etc.. So, if you want to stop trying to say micro evolution proves the idea that we evolved from common ancestor then we can stop this debate.

Darwin knew his theory had problems and in fact the Cambrian explosion brings the whole theory to a halt because we have thousands of highly developed life forms with no prior evolution being shown. In fact the Trilobite eye is incredibly advanced. Where are the forms preceding it showing this evolution in the eye? There are none.






I have answered all these points on many posts within this thread and your contention that I did not answer yours is silly. You know I have presented these facts numerous times. Deal with the facts of the sudden appearance, the lack of intermediate fossils and the repeated attempts by various scientists to prove this idea of macro evolution which each one has been proven to not work.

This past decade of understanding cellular biology and DNA has presented even more problems for the evolutionists. Where did the code come from? How did male and female both evolve equally to allow for reproduction? How did an animal evolve slowly over millions of years when so many systems are interdependent and they would die before they could "evolve".

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

The fact that species evolve WITHIN the species has not been in question. That is called adaptation and natural selection of which Darwin was correct.

And yet still can't explain the mechanism that prevents one species from evolving into another. I've already debunked your "experts'" laughable claim that information cannot be added to DNA. So what reason do you have now that prevents evolution from occurring?

I'm also amazed that it took you this long to bring up the patently false claim of irreducible complexity. You may want to do some research into why that is as laughable as your previous claim regarding DNA.

reply to post by Wertdagf


You are aware that these "knobs" are found in other extinct reptiles that science says did not have feathers, so either you are ignoring this fact because you want to believe velociraptor had feathers or you just want to ignore the fact that these "knobs" don't prove feathers.

Leiocephalus eremitus had the same "quill knobs" and it is known they form in rigormortis.

NO FEATHERS HAVE BEEN FOUND ON ANY VELOCIRAPTOR FOSSIL

Other “feathered dinosaurs” that have been found were clearly dinosaurs. Ironically, every one of these creatures that are obviously dinosaurs have less-than-obvious feathers! Real theropod dinosaurs, such as Sinosauropteryx, have been found with some type of fibrous substance surrounding them. Little more than “peach fuzz” these fibers have been hailed as “proto-feathers.”

But were they really the forerunner to modern bird feathers? Actually, there is another, simpler explanation for these fossilized fibers. When some reptiles die and decay, their scales begin to fray apart into a fibrous mass – very similar to what we see in some of these “feathered” fossils. This has been clearly observed in sea snakes for example. So rather than being feathers, it’s likely that these fibers were fossilized scales that were in the process of decaying.

But the most damaging fact to the feathered Velociraptor picture is the fact that absolutely no feathers have been found on Velociraptor! After seeing so many artist portraying it with feathers, it’s surprising to see what kind of evidence they base this on! Are you ready? This quote from the New Scientist website presents the evidence that is supposed to convince you that Velociraptor had feathers – “In the absence ofVelociraptor feathers in the archaeological record, Alan Turner at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, US, decided to take a closer look at Velociraptor bones for signs of quill knobs.

Such knobs evolved as a place for the ligaments of feathers to attach, Turner explains. While examining the Mongolian Velociraptor fossils he found the telltale bumps on the ulna - a bone that extends along the creature's front limb. The knobs, which appear in a row spaced about 4 millimetres apart, are raised less than 1 mm above the bone surface.

"These are really quite subtle features. I felt them before I saw them. They are easy to overlook," he says. There you have it, a scientist looking for quill knobs as evidence for feathers found bumps on a Velociraptor bone that he called quill knobs. Case closed! From these bumps on the bone, Turner manufactured a theory of "secondary flightlessness" for this poor creature.

SOURCE

I do think it's sort of like Nebraska man. "Hey look at this tooth! It's a man!" "Ummm, no Dr. Paleontologist, it's an extinct PIG".

Then again, men can be pigs at times.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by ZiggyMojo

 

Bringing up religion is not really pertinent to this topic so I am not dealing with that issue. I have dealt with the issues of probability and what is necessary for life and biological functioning. The probabilities of proteins coming together by chance are so impossibly remote that scientists have admitted that it's not going to happen by chance.

Every experiment to create life out of non-life has failed, and thus that has proven a problem in the "how life began" aspect.

The fact that species evolve WITHIN the species has not been in question. That is called adaptation and natural selection of which Darwin was correct.

The issue of species changing from one kind to another is what is in question, and what the issue of the hoaxes and disproved intermediate links has been shown to prove there is no evidence of this sort of change. Birds are still birds, fish are still fish, dogs are still dogs, etc.. So, if you want to stop trying to say micro evolution proves the idea that we evolved from common ancestor then we can stop this debate.

Darwin knew his theory had problems and in fact the Cambrian explosion brings the whole theory to a halt because we have thousands of highly developed life forms with no prior evolution being shown. In fact the Trilobite eye is incredibly advanced. Where are the forms preceding it showing this evolution in the eye? There are none.

I have answered all these points on many posts within this thread and your contention that I did not answer yours is silly. You know I have presented these facts numerous times. Deal with the facts of the sudden appearance, the lack of intermediate fossils and the repeated attempts by various scientists to prove this idea of macro evolution which each one has been proven to not work.

This past decade of understanding cellular biology and DNA has presented even more problems for the evolutionists. Where did the code come from? How did male and female both evolve equally to allow for reproduction? How did an animal evolve slowly over millions of years when so many systems are interdependent and they would die before they could "evolve".

Right, hold the bus. Your post above is just nonsense, it really is. Answer the following: You're telling me that a single species fragmented into separate geographically isolated populations by continental drift or a major geographical upheaval cant evolve into completely new species?

reply to post by helldiver


You can believe whatever you want, but can you prove it? Evolution offers no proof of this change between species. To believe something not proven is not science. You come up with a theory, you do your best to disprove it and prove it and then you can observe it and establish that it has been proven.

Please show me the proof and not nice pictures of people's ideas of things that are not based on science and proof.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by helldiver

 

You can believe whatever you want, but can you prove it? Evolution offers no proof of this change between species. To believe something not proven is not science. You come up with a theory, you do your best to disprove it and prove it and then you can observe it and establish that it has been proven.

Please show me the proof and not nice pictures of people's ideas of things that are not based on science and proof.

Can I point to the changes that lead from Lucy to modern man?

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by helldiver

 

You can believe whatever you want, but can you prove it? Evolution offers no proof of this change between species. To believe something not proven is not science. You come up with a theory, you do your best to disprove it and prove it and then you can observe it and establish that it has been proven.

Please show me the proof and not nice pictures of people's ideas of things that are not based on science and proof.

The marsupials of Australia evolved from a common ancestor when Australia split from South America, or more accurately Antarctica. I'm pretty sure this has been proven by DNA analysis of extant Australian and South American marsupials.

Originally posted by helldiver
Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity


The marsupials of Australia evolved from a common ancestor when Australia split from South America, or more accurately Antarctica. I'm pretty sure this has been proven by DNA analysis of extant Australian and South American marsupials.

Yet again, you use that word "proven" when in fact it's not proven. It is hypothesized and that is fine, but proof? No, it's not proven, in fact there are some very odd things about the marsupials of Australia and an idea of evolving vs. design:

this feature, what did it feed upon before? For me, it takes a great stretch of the imagination to picture the evolution of dolphins and whales. The Duckbill Platypus The explorer who first saw a hide of the duckbill platypus thought that it was composed of the hides of several different animals sewn together as a joke.

Later, when a preserved specimen was brought to him for dissection, he finally declared it outrageous, but genuine! The more you study the duckbill platypus, the more problems you find for evolutionists. Here is a list of some of its features:
1 It is a fur bearing mammal.
2 It lays eggs, yet suckles its young.
3 It has a duck like bill, which has built within it a h eat sensitive worm finding radar.
4 Its tail is flat like a beaver's, yet furry.
5 It has webbed feet in front, clawed feet in the rear.
6 The reproductive systems are uniquely different from the rest of the animal world, but mostly mammalian in nature.

The only other known monotreme, or egg - laying mammal is echidna or spiny anteater. Except for the fact that it lays eggs, it is about as different as you can get from the platypus.

Can you imagine what a pre-platypus might have looked like? Nothing in the fossil record gives us a clue about the origin of this animal, which is an outrage to evolutionists. This animal does very well in its natural environment in spite of its unusual features. To look at it, it would appear that this animal was pieced together from a variety of completely different animals.

Source


You can read about the problems regarding the Koala and while not an Australian issue, the poor pre-woodpecker must have suffered terrible migraines while it learned to hammer into trees. Of course there are no intermediates to point to that did this, but it's fun to imagine the poor suffering woodpecker, rams etc bashing their heads in until the developed the proper body to absorb said shocks. Or the poor lizard/birds trying to fly as their friends warn them not to jump until one day one actually flew!

I also note I did not see a response about Surtsey Island, which I posted about earlier in this thread.

Surtsey Island

Short bit from that article:

Surtsey Island Shouldn't Be! Seventy kilometers south of Iceland a new island was born in 1963. This in itself is not an unusual occurrence. The following year, Sigurdur Thorarinsson (1964), Iceland's foremost geophysicist, wrote a little book about the island. Here is part of h is description of the new island: Only a few months have sufficed for a landscape to be created which is so varied and mature that it is almost beyond belief...Here we see wide sandy beaches and precipitous crags lashed by breakers of the sea.

There are gravel banks and lagoons, impressive cliffs resembling the White Cliffs on the English Channel. There are hollows, glens, and soft undulating land. There are fractures and faulted cliffs, channels and rock debris. There are boulders worn by the surf, some of which are almost round, and further out there is a sandy beach where you can walk at low tide without getting wet.

Dr. Thorarinsson comments as follows, and we must remember that the island is now just
one year old.

An Icelander who has studied geology and geomorphology at foreign universities is later taught by
experience in his own homeland that the time scale he had been trained to attach to geological development
is misleading...What elsewhere may take thousands of years may be accomplished here in one century. All
the same he is amazed whenever he goes to Surtsey, because there the same development may take
a few weeks or even a few days.

It's easy to make up ideas of how this or that happened, but proving it is much more difficult. People assume they see something that is must be very old or that the theory of evolution makes sense to them, but they really don't have proof of it.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
The probabilities of proteins coming together by chance are so impossibly remote that scientists have admitted that it's not going to happen by chance.

I see this argument here quite often. Of course it's totally flawed. You really think all the scientists in the world have universally agreed and declared that something like this is impossible? Of course not. It's but a declaration of some creation "scientists". The numbers these guys come up with are totally valid, but only for their own scenarios that don't reflect actual protein evolution and its mechanisms, or nature in general, at all. For example, they assume that just a single reaction can happen at any given time, when in real life this number can be trillions times trillions. Then all of a sudden their odds aren't very impressive.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


The evidence strongly supports evolution. We have the fossil record, genetic evidence, not to mention having actually observed speciation. You on the other hand cannot explain a mechanism that prevents macroevolution (your word not mine) from occurring.

In regards to the woodpecker, I think this clearly demonstrates one of your biggest problems. You don't actually know what the modern evolutionary synthesis actually states. Your view of evolution is very Lamarckian. The woodpecker did not evolve its beak because it was banging its head against trees. It started pecking trees because it had evolved a beak that allowed it to do so. One thing that opponents of evolution don't seem to get is that there is no end goal to evolution. It is a constant process that is never ending. We, along with every other species that has ever existed and will exist, is an intermediary species.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by helldiver

 

You can believe whatever you want, but can you prove it? Evolution offers no proof of this change between species. To believe something not proven is not science. You come up with a theory, you do your best to disprove it and prove it and then you can observe it and establish that it has been proven.

Please show me the proof and not nice pictures of people's ideas of things that are not based on science and proof.

I've only seen one other poster so consistently wrong, but your level of trolling gives him a run for the money.
You constantly have to make up new excuses for being wrong and your claims are so flagrantly untrue that your fellow creationist have even given up trying to sell it.

Take look for yourself, AnswersIngenesis has the "no new species" claim on their list of "Arguments that should never be used". Creation Ministries International says "New species have been observed to form." And The CreationWiki says... "Species have been observed to form"

There you have it, your claims are such crap that not even CMI will touch it.

reply to post by flyingfish


You know it's very funny. Stop arguing with me and guess what? I won't post more stuff back. How am I trolling my own thread? You don't like what I have shared, and you disagree as do others, and yet you complain about this thread still going.

Why don't you tap the dust and say, "bye bye".

I think I have offered more than enough proof to prove the hoaxes and lies of evolution. You just don't like it. Same goes for all of you who keep this going and going and going. You are wrong, you don't like my views and you just say things like I'm stupid or I don't understand the theory. I think you all just can't handle the truth and love your little humanistic religion that has no proof. Again, we are not talking about micro-evolution, but the whole idea of species coming from common ancestors and the complete lack of intermediate fossils.

You are entitled you whatever religion you want. Just don't call it science.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


My little humanistic religion
You missed your calling, you should have become a comedian.
Oh hail Helium!





FYI... I'm not really complaining, just having a little fun at your expense.
Dueling with such simple minds is like shooting fish in a barrel.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Except every fossil is an intermediate fossil. We are an intermediate species. The reason this true is because there is no end goal to evolution. Because you are coming from a strictly Creationist viewpoint you cannot see the fact that there isn't some guiding hand behind it and as a result you keep ascribing some kind of intelligence to the process that has some final product in mind.

Evolution can be a difficult concept to grasp. On one hand it is very much random. On the other though it can be predictable, It's random in the fact that mutations very much are a random occurrence though. On the other hand though the mutations that are propagated depend on two things. The first is the one most people focus on, the environment. This is natural selection. The other is just as important, but most people don't really talk about it. That is sexual selection. These are traits that the opposite sex find attractive. You pointed out earlier in this thread how few mutations are beneficial. This is true. At the same time it is also true that few traits are deleterious. As a result most mutations produce neutral results. It is then up to sexual selection that determines which of these traits gets passed on. Generations down the line the environment may change and suddenly one of these neutral mutations may become imperative to survive. As a result the individuals that possess these mutations become the preferred mates and the occurrence of this mutation greatly increases. This can then cause a new species to offshoot.

This is the reason why you generally see an explosion of new species during genetic bottlenecks. This is also the reason why such species as alligators and crocodiles have remained relatively unchanged for thousands if not millions of years. Their environment has remained unchanged for the most part.

I feel at this point I have traveled far from the original point I was trying to make. Instead I have just given a brief overview of the most basic mechanics that drive evolution, In the end I hope this was beneficial. From your posting I have seen you express a very Lamarckian view of evolution and also one that is tinged by your belief in a Creator. Evolution is not a process with an ultimate goal and at times it may not appear to be rational. That's science for you. Many things in this universe seem to be diametrically opposed to what most people would call common sense.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by flyingfish

 

I think I have offered more than enough proof to prove the hoaxes and lies of evolution. You just don't like it. Same goes for all of you who keep this going and going and going. You are wrong, you don't like my views and you just say things like I'm stupid or I don't understand the theory. I think you all just can't handle the truth and love your little humanistic religion that has no proof. Again, we are not talking about micro-evolution, but the whole idea of species coming from common ancestors and the complete lack of intermediate fossils.

You are entitled you whatever religion you want. Just don't call it science.

You post some guy's opinion from a blog about dinosaurs not having feathers as proof?
To quote you "Please show me the proof and not nice pictures of people's ideas of things that are not based on science and proof. "

reply to post by Xcalibur254


So, all fossils are intermediates to new species huh?

In the classification of living things, insects make up a subphylum, Insecta, of the phylum Arthropoda. The oldest insect fossils belong to the Devonian Age (410 to 360 million years ago). In the Pennsylvanian Age which followed (325 to 286 million years ago), there emerged a great number of different insect species. For instance, cockroaches emerge all of a sudden, and with the same structure as they have today.

Betty Faber, of the American Museum of Natural History, reports that fossil cockroaches from 350 million years ago are exactly the same as those of today.142 Creatures such as spiders, ticks, and millipedes are not insects, but rather belong to other subphyla of Arthropoda.

Important fossil discoveries of these creatures were communicated to the 1983 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The interesting thing about these 380-million-year-old spider, tick, and centipede fossils is the fact that they are no different from specimens alive today.

One of the scientists who examined the fossils remarked that, "they looked like they might have died yesterday."143 Winged insects also emerge suddenly in the fossil record, and with all the features peculiar to them. For example, a large number of dragonfly fossils from the Pennsylvanian Age have been found. And these dragonflies have exactly the same structures as their counterparts today.

source

You don't even know what an intermediate fossil is.



This is like the horse family tree and we know that the hyrax is still alive and kicking! Some intermediate. It looks so much like a horse ya know:

Lawrence O. Richards wrote:

Today no evolutionist thinks that the "short-necked creatures not much bigger than a domestic cat" is related to the modern horse at all. The fossil called Eohippus, or Dawn Horse, is now considered to be a close relative of the rock rabbit!

Lawrence O. Richards, It Couldn't Just Happen: Fascinating Facts About God's World, (Dallas, Word Publishing, 1987), pp. 94-95.



This website lists the famous Archeopteryx as an intermediate when science ruled that out because it IS a bird!

wwsword.blogspot.com...

Then they show these cute pictures and say, "it probably looked like this coming out of the water".

Probably? That is not science. That is an artists rendition. Show me the damn fish with legs and lungs to breath air. Why would it even want to breath air? How long would you have to go into the water before you got gills? There are NO intermediate fossils.

Remember the Coelacanth? They said it had legs too, but when we caught em, we saw they were just fins. Seems if it was going to evolve to a land walking creature it would not prefer the deepest parts of the ocean. Why hasn't it continued to evolve I wonder? Maybe science jumped the gun again like they did with Ida and doesn't want to admit when they are wrong.

The Tiktaalik is just another one like Coelocanth. Draw some nice pictures, make your predictions and show NO PROOF. There should be millions of fossils showing it turning into an animal and not a fish, but all we have is that lil funny fin.

You all find crap in mud, label it an age you like that supports your theory then when newer stuff is found under it, you throw it out and ignore it. Horse fossils are found in all different layers and yet you all just line em up a certain way to show some supposed evolution to fit your little world view of things. To hell with the facts, it looks good seems to be evolutionists motto.

"All fossils are intermediates"

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Yes all fossils are intermediate. No species ever truly stops evolving. Just because the cockroach or coelacanth may be living fossils doesn't mean that species didn't evolve from it. Just because speciation occurs doesn't mean the previous species suddenly ceases to exist. Here's a hypothetical situation using cockroaches as our example. They are found pretty much all over the world. Well let's say the environment for the cockroaches in Brazil suddenly changes and this change causes most of the cockroaches to die. However there are a few that have the mutations to ensure survival. This means we have reached a genetic bottleneck. Now these mutations that ensure survival will be passed on along with others that may have been rarer in the previous cockroach population. So what we're left with are cockroaches that can survive in this environment but we may also see a new species emerge. Just because we have a new species doesn't mean that cockroaches stopped existing at all in Brazil and it certainly doesn't mean that cockroaches stopped existing everywhere in the world just because the environment changed in Brazil.

Then of course there's also the fact that just because the fossils look like cockroaches doesn't mean that their genetic structure is the same as the cockroaches we have today. It also doesn't mean they would be able to reproduce with modern cockroaches. From the links you provided it seems that you're drawing many of your conclusions from phenotype when what you should really be looking at is genotype.