so called evo evidence

[RTooty]

You evos say the evidence is overwhelming? Your so-called evidence is based upon someone’s interpretation of what they have claimed to observed. It has long been known that much of the so-called evidence lacks veracity because the finders have been academically dishonest. In fact, that it’s likely the case with the most recent Ida find. Tell me where we can go see the so-called geologic column for all of the fossilized forms are put in date order? It does not exist.


Tell me how you can support evolution based upon present knowledge of DNA and genes. I have a clue for you: DNA contains information. Changes in DNA have purported to have occurred in evolution result in a loss of information, not in a gain of information. No one questions micro evolution, as these changes merely demonstrate information that is already encoded into the gene. Do you really believe in an Einstein fish who at one point decided he needed to grow feet, and he decided to pass that on to his kids? Show me one.


Adherents to evolution cannot tolerate when their conclusions, based upon pure speculation and surmise, are subjected to scrutiny. Curiously, this is the same type of scrutiny that the same folks apply to anything else they happen to disagree with.



Isn’t it interesting that a number of posters here show a clear hostility to people who express faith in something other than themselves? How nice of them to decide that it’s in everyone’s best interest to tell others what they should believe. Isn’t that the very thing that they resist?
Let me say something positive about the detractors: you all certainly believe very strongly in what you believe. I can say that you have defended your cause with a religious zeal. Your crusade to defend your faith is well noted. Some have acted as though they have been crucified at the hands of wicked people of faith.



I guess if I stand before the great god of evolution I will make the same response as Bertrand Russell, “you didn’t give me enough evidence to believe.”

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Let me be the first to call Poe.

 

[MoonLancer]

It has long been known that much of the so-called evidence lacks veracity because the finders have been academically dishonest.

sure, all you need to do is show where their is academic dishonestly. Although i think whats really going on here is a fallacy called poisoning the well. If you had evidence of academic dishonestly you would have said so. You don't, so your still back at at the beginning except you have simply made claims you cannot support.

 

[Washington]

 

[MoonLancer]

Isn’t it interesting that a number of posters here show a clear hostility to people who express faith in something other than themselves?

claims that evolution is false are a dim a dozen. what would really be worth something is evidence. also your word games about faith in ones selves is noticed and reveals your bias in coded language.

How nice of them to decide that it’s in everyone’s best interest to tell others what they should believe. Isn’t that the very thing that they resist?

if i believe murder is solly just when i do it, should someone stop me?

you can believe anything you want as long as it doesn't impose on others see prop 8 for an example of Christians forcing their believe on others via actions

Let me say something positive about the detractors: you all certainly believe very strongly in what you believe. I can say that you have defended your cause with a religious zeal.

hey don't blame me if fundies poisoned their own language. (see religious zeal). I love it how faith becomes a bad word for christains... it just makes me laugh and laugh and laugh. project much?

Your crusade to defend your faith is well noted. Some have acted as though they have been crucified at the hands of wicked people of faith.

see above. Science requires no faith, simply intellect. If you don't have it that's ok. I also find it funny when the same people who use your kind of language attack collages. from my perspective it really just looks like uneducated people who cant let go of a fantasy attack education.

I guess if I stand before the great god of evolution I will make the same response as Bertrand Russell, “you didn’t give me enough evidence to believe.”

theirs no god of evolution, unless you believe god used evolution as the mechanism to diversify life.

however the case is not that theirs no evidence, its simply you don't understand it.

Its ironic, theirs no evidence in god or the bible, yet theirs TOO much evidence for evolution that its behind the common man.

if you have never based what you believe on evidence, evidence will likely not be effective.

 

[MoonLancer]

bait
​

meh, maybe the fisherman caught a shark.

 

[Kharak]

Your so-called evidence is based upon someone’s interpretation of what they have claimed to observed.

Sort of like how one can interpert the mass of a ten kilogram rock to be different? That is, something other than ten kilograms.

It has long been known that much of the so-called evidence lacks veracity because the finders have been academically dishonest.

Yes, curse them for publishing works for their fellow professionals and conducting gladitorial combat in the academic arena with peer reviewed journals by tough audiences. Science should be done by self appointed experts from degree mills and half-witted quacks from irrelevant fields.

In fact, that it’s likely the case with the most recent Ida find. Tell me where we can go see the so-called geologic column for all of the fossilized forms are put in date order? It does not exist.

Can you see electrons or their respective probability clouds? I guess they don't exist. What about the electromagnetic force? Generators should shut down than. Can you see gravity? Pity . . . I've never seen space/time myself either, except as a crude representation on a clock. The theoretical understanding of geology and time is understood enough that no Cretinist has produced evidence contradicting the current processes as we know them.

Tell me how you can support evolution based upon present knowledge of DNA and genes. I have a clue for you: DNA contains information. Changes in DNA have purported to have occurred in evolution result in a loss of information, not in a gain of information.

That may be why bacteria have used new coding to consume nylon. Oh wait, excuse me . . .

No one questions micro evolution, as these changes merely demonstrate information that is already encoded into the gene.

I suppose that nylon eating gene was already there, especially when no such string of amino acids existed in the progenitors of said organisms (see what I did there?). Your claim is postively ridiculous when one considers the difference in the genomes of organisms among the kingdoms; and the fact that most genetic "information" is physically incapable of doing anything. There are a finite amount of amino acid combinations that produce any results to speak of.

Unless you believe certain ferns are more advanced than us by virtue of exhausting genetic backgrounds. We humans are not even close to the most genetically complex organisms by a long shot.

Do you really believe in an Einstein fish who at one point decided he needed to grow feet, and he decided to pass that on to his kids? Show me one.

He didn't decide, but his progeny that carried on this trait had a better chance of survival in a land where there was less competition or certain advantages to land travel. Certain species of fish hop up on land for varying purposes, and amphibians essentially reflect the entire point of land/water habitation.

Adherents to evolution cannot tolerate when their conclusions, based upon pure speculation and surmise, are subjected to scrutiny. Curiously, this is the same type of scrutiny that the same folks apply to anything else they happen to disagree with.

It's not scrutiny evolution cannot stand: Genetics enhanced it, and many biologists have routinely stated that Darwin's original understanding has been completely usurped and redeveloped it. The real problem is when people argue points that are nonscientific; such as irreducible complexity and its spin offs.

Isn’t it interesting that a number of posters here show a clear hostility to people who express faith in something other than themselves?

Science is not faith: Science is the antithesis of faith. Science changes, it discards and occasionally disappears in a poof of ether as it is continually hammered against the anvil of progress. It is more real than anything in acknowledging the mortal limitation that is finite knowledge. Evolution has survived scientific struggle because it has not be scientifically contradicted (key word there: scientifically). If I find a fully developed hare inside the stomach of a sea scorpion, then why have issues.

The issue is when people try adding "Truth(R)" to thing that screws it up. You cannot add a god to an experiment on small pox strain examinations more than I can explain how Beowulf demonstrated the conservation of mass/energy. There is no ultimate truth to science, except that is doesn't care. The atomic model has changed dramatically within this past century, but particle accelerators still work.

There was a time when people assumed the sky was made up of crystalline spheres, yet material observation proved this incorrect. A few tried to "interpert" the evidence for a geocentric universe, but they were then justly exterminated by the retrograde rotation of the planetary bodies. Creationists are attempting to argue evolution is not true, so they will be in turn exterimated by their own undefined terms as their predecessors couldn't even construct decent calendars.

 

[shinbits]

Let me be the first to call Poe.

what is that?

 

[Drekkan85]

what is that?

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article."

Nowadays though the word 'Creationist' has expanded to any fundamentalist.

 

[Kharak]

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article."

Nowadays though the word 'Creationist' has expanded to any fundamentalist.

On Talk.Origins, it has been shorten to "Cretinist".

As 1984-esque as that sounds, it is nothing compared to the definition of "Evolutionist": Atheist-Pot Smoking-Vegan-Hippy-Secular-Lying-Sushi Eating-Gun Hating-God Hating-Dog Hating-Liberal.

Whatever liberal means nowadays.

 

[Ectezus]

You evos say the evidence is overwhelming?

Not just the evo's. Every sane person with a good education who hasn't been brought up in a religious environment.
I'm betting you disqualify for this category of just 2 criteria.

Your so-called evidence is based upon someone’s interpretation [...]

Well that's partly true. Interpretations of data happens everywhere. However in evolution the tree of life is confirmed by many other fields of science. Genetics wasn't even known in Darwins time and it agrees 100%, not 99% but 100% with the ToE. 150 years later and not a single contradiction.


1-2-3-4-X-6-7-8-9

Evo's say: X = 5
Creos say: X = GODDIDIT

'nuff said.

- Ectezus

 

[Hespera]

If the OP is anything other than another drive-by, let the poster come back and present his one best argument for demolition.

 

[MoonLancer]

If you ask a creationists for proof they will throw the book at you.

what if you ask them for proof twice? i mean they only have one book right?

*edit* yeah that was a little low, sorry.

 

[RTooty]

Well apparently those who were so offended by the original post don’t want to make any substantial cogent argument. Conclusory commentary and offhand dismissal seems to be the standard. Still, no one has actually addressed the nature of the so-called evidence, and the tendency of proponents of evolution to submit fraudulent and contrived data.


Just because you call something a fallacy doesn’t mean that it is. Don’t you think that you are misdirecting the question. The question is toward the so-called evidence that evolution relies on. None of you give me any evidence that you know anymore about DNA than anyone else. You guys talk about word games, but you use some of the most twisted logic because you don’t want to face the weakness of the thing that you believe in.


The original post certainly did not invite anyone to express a faith in God or to believe in any particular faith. Likewise, creationism or intelligent design was never mentioned. It certainly does not suggest that you abandon your faith in creation, it merely asks about the validity, the veracity, and the credibility of the so-called evidence. Still, there is no solid response on that. Certainly we can exchange websites, but that doesn’t prove the point, does it? By the way, I suppose those who have offered websites truly believe that if it’s on the Internet, it must be true.


Seems to me that many purport to same parroting and strawman arguments that they claim to have been refuted. They have not been refuted at all. Show me the evidence. Instead, you want to call names again, referring to everyone who doesn’t agree with you to say “fundie”.



Here's a question: do you really believe evolution has anything to do with advances in medical science or any other branch of science? Ridiculous. Another conclusory statement.


I will say this, I will bet you a dime to a dollar that many of the so-called moral atheist herethink that it’s perfectly okay to extinguish pre-born human babies for any reason whatsoever. Now, those same people may cringe a little bit if the infant happens to be two or three years old, but really what is the difference based upon your foundation? When a person is mentally incompetent, physically challenged, or just old, but I bet they would think it’s okay to extinguish those too. Be careful folks, many of you who purport to support evolution are not too far from sounding like the Third Reich. Tell me something, what makes you so angry about all of this?


For many here, I think your moral compass is a bit off. Who are you to say that any agnostic or atheist is moral? What do you base that on? What right do you have to determine who is moral and who is not? Based on your foundation, you have no right at all. In some societies, you are supposed to love your neighbor, and others, you eat him. Which one do you subscribe to?


Oh by the way, I guess I can jump to the conclusion that I win, since this is now the last word on the subject, and no one has responded. (I’m not so pompous as to believe that’s actually the case, as some of the previous posts).

 

[Jester4kicks]

Well apparently those who were so offended by the original post don’t want to make any substantial cogent argument. Conclusory commentary and offhand dismissal seems to be the standard. Still, no one has actually addressed the nature of the so-called evidence, and the tendency of proponents of evolution to submit fraudulent and contrived data.

Examples?

Just because you call something a fallacy doesn’t mean that it is. Don’t you think that you are misdirecting the question. The question is toward the so-called evidence that evolution relies on. None of you give me any evidence that you know anymore about DNA than anyone else. You guys talk about word games, but you use some of the most twisted logic because you don’t want to face the weakness of the thing that you believe in.

Examples?

The original post certainly did not invite anyone to express a faith in God or to believe in any particular faith. Likewise, creationism or intelligent design was never mentioned. It certainly does not suggest that you abandon your faith in creation, it merely asks about the validity, the veracity, and the credibility of the so-called evidence. Still, there is no solid response on that. Certainly we can exchange websites, but that doesn’t prove the point, does it?

I suppose if you were told to read a particular book on the subject, you would do it before replying? Websites simply serve as an easy means for citing information. The veracity of the information therein must be judged by the person citing the source and the person scrutinizing it. If you feel the information is incorrect, state your reasons and the discussion can proceed from there.

By the way, I suppose those who have offered websites truly believe that if it’s on the Internet, it must be true.

1st ad-hom.

Seems to me that many purport to same parroting and strawman arguments that they claim to have been refuted. They have not been refuted at all. Show me the evidence. Instead, you want to call names again, referring to everyone who doesn’t agree with you to say “fundie”.

No, people who say silly things to justify or rationalize their beliefs, when what they are saying flies in the face of common sense or basic science, is (rightfully) called a fundie.

Here's a question: do you really believe evolution has anything to do with advances in medical science or any other branch of science? Ridiculous. Another conclusory statement.

So... you decided to make your own conclusory statement with a dash of dismissal?

I will say this, I will bet you a dime to a dollar that many of the so-called moral atheist herethink that it’s perfectly okay to extinguish pre-born human babies for any reason whatsoever. Now, those same people may cringe a little bit if the infant happens to be two or three years old, but really what is the difference based upon your foundation?

2nd ad-hom.

Simple answer, though: viability. Your argument on evolution wasn't going anywhere, so you decided to move onto abortion? Tsk tsk.

When a person is mentally incompetent, physically challenged, or just old, but I bet they would think it’s okay to extinguish those too.

3rd ad-hom... unless you would like to show where any "moral atheist" made such an argument.

Be careful folks, many of you who purport to support evolution are not too far from sounding like the Third Reich.

4th ad-hom. Not to mention that plenty of christians agree with evolution. Look up Kenneth Miller.

Tell me something, what makes you so angry about all of this?

Who's angry?

For many here, I think your moral compass is a bit off.

What does the Theory of Evolution have to do with morality?

Who are you to say that any agnostic or atheist is moral?

Who says we did? I'd venture to say that agnostics and atheists are just as capable of being moral OR immoral as anyone else in the world.

What do you base that on? What right do you have to determine who is moral and who is not?

The same right as anyone else with a mind and the willingness to use it.

Based on your foundation, you have no right at all. In some societies, you are supposed to love your neighbor, and others, you eat him.

Examples?

Which one do you subscribe to?

Do we have to choose from only the options you provided?

Oh by the way, I guess I can jump to the conclusion that I win, since this is now the last word on the subject, and no one has responded. (I’m not so pompous as to believe that’s actually the case, as some of the previous posts).

Sure thing. Whatever helps you get by.

 

[ragarth]

RTooty, you start off by insulting and stereotyping the group you want to talk to, throw accusations of dishonesty about, and take an obstinate and may I say rather nasty tone in your post. Yet through the accusations, insults, and stereotyping you expect people to give you a cogent argument... why?

If you start off with vitriol and attack a stereotype of the community you wish to debate, you'll do nothing more than create for yourself a self-fulfilling prophecy. Anyone who might have given you a decent, thought out argument will simply ignore your thread in deference to something more intellectually interesting while those you attract to post here will be those willing to give you the same vitriol back in turn. If you were truly interested in having a decent, thought out discussion, then you would tone down the nastiness and instead concentrate on making your argument rather than making insults.

 

[Kharak]

Rune Factory is calling, cough . . . So I will be brief.

Well apparently those who were so offended by the original post don’t want to make any substantial cogent argument.

Conclusion: You offended yourself in the first post and were unable to provide any real argument in the first post. Did we not provide you omnislashing examples? One of the finer points of debate (as opposed to a T-90 trucking over a naked creationist holding up a sign) is that one must provide point rebuttals. Monologues, oddly enough, are not like to this process.

Just because you call something a fallacy doesn’t mean that it is.

We demonstrated Intelligent Design and its kin to be a fallacy in logic. No one has defined Irreducible Complexity to a measurable term, and there really is no scientific material in relying on supernatural explanations (science, after all, must be naturalistic or it isn't science). To bring it down to a Hellenic understanding, you are making up arguments that don't have anything to do with Evolution in addition to the previously stated, or just don't understand genetics for example. Did I not mention the evolutionary leap that was the nylon eating bacteria?

None of you give me any evidence that you know anymore about DNA than anyone else. You guys talk about word games, but you use some of the most twisted logic because you don’t want to face the weakness of the thing that you believe in.

You have demonstrated you know nothing of genetics, yet are unable to admit this. Bandying words like "information" around without knowing they are postively meaningless in your context is evidence of [a] BS. Did I not also mention that the length of genes is irrelevent to the actual complexity of the organism in question. Like I said: Most of that genetic "data" does absolutely nothing but occasionally mutate to another null-chain in replication.

The original post certainly did not invite anyone to express a faith in God or to believe in any particular faith.

Science doesn't care what you believe. It exists for the material realm alone, unless you want to start introducing the Chaos Gods and the Eye of Terror.

Likewise, creationism or intelligent design was never mentioned. It certainly does not suggest that you abandon your faith in creation, it merely asks about the validity, the veracity, and the credibility of the so-called evidence.

Yes: Material evidence like that stupid vitamin C gene absent in primates that indicates a common ancestor, provided that we are the only animals that share this 'defect' on the exact same locus (or that we exercise frequent bipedalism and have only two mammary glands). Or the fact that we expected to find midget or giant sized species on small islands. Evolution does have predictive power, a cornerstone of all true theories.

Seems to me that many purport to same parroting and strawman arguments that they claim to have been refuted.

It seems you do not understand the term "strawman" either, but you are a glamorous example of it. You are crying that evolutionary biologists have never provided evidence, but evidence has been provided in thousands of journals among multiple languages and disciplines (as well as common knowledge examples found in high school level textbooks). No one is going to hold your hand when crossing the street after the thousandth time, and I have a tendency to kick people into oncoming traffic for quick entertainment.

They have not been refuted at all. Show me the evidence.

I think we share a common ancestor with these guys. Considering some of them predated us and live alongside us, and the very fact that there was a point when modern humans did not exist, there is evidence for common ancestory. Very broad, but I am also very tired and have turnips to harvest and what not at this point.

Here's a question: do you really believe evolution has anything to do with advances in medical science or any other branch of science? Ridiculous. Another conclusory statement.

Disease vector control uses evolutionary components (and disclaimer: If you use the word microevolution instead of evolution, you will immediately demonstrate a very poor understanding of biology in general), and certain computer engineering disciplines use evolution as a model for development. Our first self aware computer intelligences may very well utilize programming wrought by evolution simulations conditioned to produce sentience. After all, evolution did make us [more] sentient than the other current organisms here on Terra.

I will say this, I will bet you a dime to a dollar that many of the so-called moral atheist herethink that it’s perfectly okay to extinguish pre-born human babies for any reason whatsoever. Now, those same people may cringe a little bit if the infant happens to be two or three years old, but really what is the difference based upon your foundation?

Weren't you arguing about strawmen? I call bunk. What in the name of the God Emperor of Mankind does this have to do with evolution? I'm not even an atheist!

When a person is mentally incompetent, physically challenged, or just old, but I bet they would think it’s okay to extinguish those too. Be careful folks, many of you who purport to support evolution are not too far from sounding like the Third Reich. Tell me something, what makes you so angry about all of this?

ACHTUNG! Strawman alert! That has nothing to do with evolution, that (Social Darwinism) was a Victorian Age concept based on a misunderstanding by several social theorists of the time. If you study your history, you'll quickly find out that Aryans have little to do with evolution. Neither does forced sterilization, because none of that would actually benefit humanity. No one here is arguing that but you of course, but I should not expect less from someone who cannot help but endulge in doublespeak.

For many here, I think your moral compass is a bit off. Who are you to say that any agnostic or atheist is moral? What do you base that on? What right do you have to determine who is moral and who is not? Based on your foundation, you have no right at all. In some societies, you are supposed to love your neighbor, and others, you eat him. Which one do you subscribe to?

Uh, back on track here: Evolutionary biologists are by and far neither. But if you want to get personal, Kurt Vonnegut's zombie could school you in moral and ethics. You've already demonstrated a distasteful lack of intellectual integrity by calling atrocity on the other side, executing said atrocity yourself and claim you are not doing it (calling strawman, using a strawmand and actually claiming not to exercise said fallacy).

The argument is on evolution, not your juvenile posturing on belief systems outside its domain.

Oh by the way, I guess I can jump to the conclusion that I win, since this is now the last word on the subject, and no one has responded. (I’m not so pompous as to believe that’s actually the case, as some of the previous posts).

Look at it this way . . .

You are acting little better than a child who can't play a game of plastic army men without winning. You are kicking and screaming in a very animated fashion after the shields of invincibility and death rays have run out of energy. You are bringing the green guys to the fight and their little green tanks on shoddy plastic wheels. I believe this is a very good portrait of what evolution denial is and stands for.

Meanwhile, evolution itself is a big burly German soldier with a mean accent and a fully loaded 7.62mm G3. The guns on the army men are not real, but the H&K rifle is.

 

[RTooty]

I will say it again. The evidence is flawed. You all assume the conclusions of evolution “scientists” is true, because they have told you it is true. The underpinnings are faulty. They are fraudulent and contrived in many cases. The conclusions are errant because the adherents begin with presuppositions regarding their anticipated outcomes. You won’t do the research for me? Heck, you haven’t even done your own research. Like I said, show me the evidence–the burden is on the proponent.

As for evolution being the underpinning of all biological science. That is simply bunk. Observable data is not dependent on evolution. Medicine is not dependent upon evolution at all. So, what you are claiming is that the reason for all progress in biological science is evolution? How arrogant of you to think that your pet theory is all that important. Name one discovery or medical/biological invention that owes its underpinning to evolution. Look, when Mendel grew peas, they came out as peas. If the seeds still survive, they are still peas.


People have told me that DNA research has ‘proven’ evolution. That is simply another evolutionist non sequiturs. If you think your genome information is so over-charged, why don’t you volunteer to have the 85% of your unused DNA information extracted. Ultimately, you will find it is there for a purpose. It makes the thing work. I have heard your friends argue that the S-1 vertebrae is a left-over product of evolution. They will not admit that it serves a purpose. No one wants it removed because there are some pretty important parts attached.


Even one of your own acknowleged that there is no explanation for the origin of life. Experiments with the primevil soup have failed miserably. Show me the evidence for the origin of life. Some of your most honored scientist have suggested alien seeding with a straight face. Talk about an infinite regression.


I will say this, I respect your opinion and your right to disagree with me. I don’t think I postulated such a strong opinion in the first place. I am amused that some have approached the subject with such an arrogant and condescending attitude, and I think I have been, as one contributor suggested, polite.



I do know that none you have addressed the evidence question that was originally raised. I am not demanding that you research for me. If you subscribe to something just because “scientists say”, your research is suspect anyway. You are merely accepting the evidence that someone says they have found and drawn a conclusion. If the evidence is wrong, the conclusion fails.

 

[MoonLancer]

I will say it again. The evidence is flawed. You all assume the conclusions of evolution “scientists” is true, because they have told you it is true. The underpinnings are faulty. They are fraudulent and contrived in many cases. The conclusions are errant because the adherents begin with presuppositions regarding their anticipated outcomes. You won’t do the research for me? Heck, you haven’t even done your own research. Like I said, show me the evidence–the burden is on the proponent.

and again we will ask for specifics. You offer none. You have no case. Only ramblings

Even one of your own acknowleged that there is no explanation for the origin of life. Experiments with the primevil soup have failed miserably. Show me the evidence for the origin of life. Some of your most honored scientist have suggested alien seeding with a straight face. Talk about an infinite regression.

show me the origin of gravity. Nope gravity still happens even without knowing this.

I do know that none you have addressed the evidence question that was originally raised. I am not demanding that you research for me. If you subscribe to something just because “scientists say”, your research is suspect anyway. You are merely accepting the evidence that someone says they have found and drawn a conclusion. If the evidence is wrong, the conclusion fails.

and do you extend this philosophy to your bible, believing something someone said 2000 years ago?

 

[MoonLancer]

Tell me how you can support evolution based upon present knowledge of DNA and genes.

I have a clue for you. Its called ERV Its basically viruses that embed itself in dna. They follow the evolutionary tree, and confirmed what scientists already thought they knew about evolution. When multiple sources from multiple fields conferm an theory, its pretty hard to debunk it or prove it wrong.

Endogenous Retrovirus

look it up.