Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Why would it insult me? You haven't got the slightest idea what I look like...lol

Though IF I told you that you had the mentality of a 5 year old... and about as clever and bright as a sloth, im sure it would be different... at least that is on display lol

And as far as variety is concerned... well, im not a geneticist... but that doesn't matter anyways... Even IF I was and I gave you an answer you'd just attempt to insult me again because you don't like or understand said answer

typical with religious types

At least I would be right according your own conviction of having descended from ape, or fish, or how far you want to go back in time on the timeline you have in mind. You look like something, that's for sure.

And again no answer at all, as usual.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Yeah... i do look like something... lol

No answer to what?

People here give you answers and all you do is toss insults around...

a reply to: Akragon

You're just here to troll, right?

It's ok.

in the interest of returning this discussion to the actual topic...

what do users here believe would qualify as conclusive proof that evolution is absolutely wrong?

what smoking gun is required to demonstrate that a divine (or extra terrestrial) factor is definitely the final answer to this debate?

a reply to: TzarChasm

There's no proof evolution is right so that would make up for proof it being wrong.

The spiritual can only pray for the fallen ones to gain knowledge from the source of existence which they deny.

This is just a circus where the lion jumps through a loop of fire only to end up eating the magician.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: TzarChasm

There's no proof evolution is right so that would make up for proof it being wrong.

The spiritual can only pray for the fallen ones to gain knowledge from the source of existence which they deny.

This is just a circus where the lion jumps through a loop of fire only to end up eating the magician.

that is why I prefer ted talks over a circus act. theater is beautiful, but education is useful.

a reply to: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Akragon

You're just here to troll, right?

It's ok.

Haha... look man... all you people troll these threads... even the OP is trolling his own thread in the other "evolution debate".... so what do you care either way? Besides that... this is my thread so...

In any case no... im here for shear amusement...

Im constantly amazed how religious people Start these threads even though they know little to nothing about the subject matter... blatantly lie and misrepresent the material... and then ignore and insult those that try to correct them

Hitchens said it best... religion poisons everything

But its very amusing

a reply to: Akragon

Its funny, when the troll hunter was exiled the trolls come out on mass.

Look how many there are now.

a reply to: Skyfox81

Sorry which troll hunter? I took a break from ATS for a while to deal with situations elsewhere. All I see here is the same old same old. Religious nuts ignoring facts, and accusing scientists of Trolling.

a reply to: Noinden

Goodman Noiden, how goes thee.

a reply to: Skyfox81

Same old same old. Just a Pagan who's also a scientist trying to live An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil. I've been busy dealing with far right racists in the New Zealand Community after we had the shootings in march.

a reply to: Noinden

Nice, so did the hobits evolve there lol.

Best of luck dealing with the bigots.

a reply to: Akragon

Denying ignorance is the theme of this forum.

It's what we do. It is nice doing it together with you.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Well we can only try

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Indeed Denying ignorance IS the theme. Have you tried informing yourself on both sides of the argument?

a reply to: Skyfox81

No we just imported Hobbits, Orcs, Elves, Dwarves etc. The permit for the Balrog and the Dragon was a real doozy.

a reply to: Noinden

One proves the other wrong so I stick with the right one.

Can we see a show of hands as to who agrees with the following statement:

"... there is no such thing as absolute certainty in science" (Alexander Vilenkin, who is the Leonard Jane Holmes Bernstein Professor of Evolutionary Science and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers.)

Note the following synonyms for "right", which is the antonym of "wrong":

accurate adjective correct, without error

absolute
certain
conclusive
definite
factual
right

Source: Factual Synonyms, Factual Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?

...
PROBLEMS WITH THE “PROOF”

What, though, of the fossils that are used to show fish changing into amphibians, and reptiles into mammals? Do they provide solid proof of evolution in action? Upon closer inspection, several problems become obvious.

First, the comparative size of the creatures placed in the reptile-to-mammal sequence is sometimes misrepresented in textbooks. Rather than being similar in size, some creatures in the series are huge, while others are small.

A second, more serious challenge is the lack of proof that those creatures are somehow related. Specimens placed in the series are often separated by what researchers estimate to be millions of years. Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils, zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.”34* [Henry Gee does not suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong. His comments are made to show the limits of what can be learned from the fossil record.]

Commenting on the fossils of fish and amphibians, biologist Malcolm S. Gordon states that the fossils found represent only a small, “possibly quite unrepresentative, sample of the biodiversity that existed in these groups at those times.” He further says: “There is no way of knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms were relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might have been to each other.”35* [Malcolm S. Gordon supports the teaching of evolution.]
...
34. In Search of Deep Time​—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, 1999, p. 23.

35. Biology and Philosophy, p. 340.

If one agrees with Alexander Vilenkin, a very popular agnostic philosophy about the word "science", can anyone prove anything right or wrong to you?

Can anyone here see how this might relate to edmc^2's comment about "1. Rules are dictated by the opponent." in his thread called "The Case Against Playing in the Evolution Court."

Agnosticism, the ultimate technique to deny inconvenient realities/facts/truths/certainties and feign and/or embrace ignorance and myths designed to sound plausible in the eyes of biased beholders, rather than 'deny ignorance'.

The mindset of those favoring agnosticism (like Vilenkin, although in his case I suspect it to be a more selective form of agnosticism, only inconvenient facts/certainties like that the universe had a beginning, which is the topic he was responding to with the quotation at the start of this comment):

...except ignorance.

Perhaps a more interesting question is:

"Can you prove evolution right?"

Sort of like one doesn't need to prove that the idea that flying spaghetti monsters can exist, is wrong; at least not until its proponents are willing to claim that they have proven it right, that that possibility indeed exists.

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story​—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”​—In Search of Deep Time—​Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117.

Henry Gee is a British paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and senior editor of the scientific journal Nature. Remember in which context he used the word "definite"? I bolded it before. Isn't it a little ironic that Henry Gee regularly gives his stamp of approval* on articles in Nature magazine where paleontologists basically "take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage"?

*: often incorrectly viewed as "peer review"

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: turbonium1


Do you have any citations supporting your number of one quadrillion species being used as a number regarding biological organisms over the last 500 million years? Or perhaps a citation supporting your claim that not a single one ever evolved? You keep using the same argument and pretend it’s a fact yet you’ve never once been able to support this argument other than “anyone who believes it is an idiot”? Because if you’ve got the facts to support this idea you have falsified the MES and deserve a place amongst the pantheon of great scientists right up there with Einstein, Max Planck and the Leakey family. If you were able to put your money where your mouth is, you wouldn’t need to resort to petty name calling and ad hominem attacks. Yet here you are, never a citation and still resorting to talking S#

It is documented by using DNA to identify each specific species on Earth today, which excludes every other species on Earth as another option, because they have DNA unique to THEIR species, as well.

We could not identify each species from other species on Earth through DNA if a species 'evolved' into another species.


What proof do you have that DNA is not able to identify every species on Earth, as unique from other species? Show me a species that has 'evolved' into another species, if you can. I have abundant evidence that you deny exists, from this alone. Let's see what you have, and we'll compare the two arguments....


I don't like your chances here, buddy.