For the lurkers' sake...
Your so-called evidence is based upon someones interpretation of what they have claimed to observed.
Do I smell an accusation of fraud? Do I smell accusing pretty much every single scientist who ever studied evolution of fraud?
It has long been known that much of the so-called evidence lacks veracity because the finders have been academically dishonest.
Evidence please.
In fact, that its likely the case with the most recent Ida find.
Oh, Ida. A single fossil touted as more than it is does in no way cast doubt on "much" of the evidence for evolution.
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.
I'd be very surprised if it existed, seeing as there are a zillion different environments on earth at any one time, each with its unique collection of living creatures. There's no way
all of the fossilised forms would be represented in a neat chronological column like that unless the entire geological column was preserved over the whole earth. If you have Eocene whale fossils in the column at a certain location, that pretty much excludes having Eocene horse fossils there.
However, for your education: the geological column apparently
does 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.
Right. Mutations can be reversed. So if A --> T is a loss of information, is T --> A at the same position
also a loss of information? Something is fishy about the logic here.
Is gene duplication a loss of information?
No one questions micro evolution, as these changes merely demonstrate information that is already encoded into the gene.
Define information, please, and demonstrate how this statement is true.
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?
No.
The fish didn't decide any such thing. The fish just happened to have fins that made it better at moving about in the shallows than other fish. Given an advantage to that ability - say, being better able to avoid the big fish, or having better access to safe breeding grounds, atmospheric oxygen or some food source -, the fish would be a successful one, and the next generation would be full of shallow-adapted little fish. Rinse and repeat...
Adherents to evolution cannot tolerate when their conclusions, based upon pure speculation and surmise...,
How is, let's see... the entire fossil record, hundreds of sequenced genomes and many more sequenced genes, biogeography, observed selection and speciation, novelties arising under scientists' nose and all that "pure speculation and surmise"?
Let me say something positive about the detractors: you all certainly believe very strongly in what you believe.
That's not necessarily positive...
I can say that you have defended your cause with a religious zeal. Your crusade to defend your faith is well noted.
Believing something based on absolute shiploads of evidence is hardly "faith".
Well apparently those who were so offended by the original post dont 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,
Since the so-called evidence probably encompasses millions of papers' worth of information, it's kinda hard to address it in general... Any specific areas or pieces of evidence you would like to discuss?
...and the tendency of proponents of evolution to submit fraudulent and contrived data.
Evidence, please. Remember, a fraction of a per cent does not a "tendency" make.
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.
Ask something about DNA, and I might give you that evidence. I'm pretty sure, at least, that I know more about it than you.
Also, refer back to the mutation/information argument a few paragraphs back.
You guys talk about word games, but you use some of the most twisted logic because you dont want to face the weakness of the thing that you believe in.
Examples, please.
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.
Evidence for what? Be specific for once, please.
Instead, you want to call names again, referring to everyone who doesnt agree with you to say fundie.
Seeing as "fundies" make up a very large proportion of those who don't agree with us in this particular matter, that's at least vaguely justified.
Here's a question: do you really believe evolution has anything to do with advances in medical science or any other branch of science?
Yes.
If nothing else, evolution lets us understand why so many things in living organisms are
useless or counterproductive 
Ridiculous. Another conclusory statement.
Is "conclusory" even a word?
I will say this, I will bet you a dime to a dollar that many of the so-called moral atheist herethink that its perfectly okay to extinguish pre-born human babies for any reason whatsoever.
For
any reason? I think you'd lose the bet.
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 its 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?
Can anyone count all the fallacies in this paragraph?
There's a
slippery slope there: if you don't mind abortion, why wouldn't you mind killing children or cripples? Well, there are differences between clumps of cells, foetuses that have no chance at all of living a happy life, thinking, feeling cripples and, indeed, all kinds of disabilities. It's never a simple issue, no matter how you want to make it simple.
Then, the whole paragraph is basically a huge irrelevant ad hominem. Look at those baby-eating evilutionists: you sure don't want to believe what they do? Look at the things James Watson said about Africans! Sure DNA can't be a double helix?
Sorry, man, but the truth of a belief doesn't depend on the moral qualities of the believer.
For many here, I think your moral compass is a bit off.
What does that have to do with evolution?
Who are you to say that any agnostic or atheist is moral?
Who are you to say that they are not?
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?
What does that have to do with evolution?
Maybe, with your
vastly superior moral compass, you could try judging people's morality by their
actions, not their religious views. Would you say that a Christian who kills and rapes is moral?
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.
Indeed your telepathy skills must be very good to read people's mind from the other end of the continent/earth.
The underpinnings are faulty. They are fraudulent and contrived in many cases.
Evidence, please.
The conclusions are errant because the adherents begin with presuppositions regarding their anticipated outcomes.
Evidence, please.
You wont do the research for me? Heck, you havent even done your own research. Like I said, show me the evidencethe burden is on the proponent.
Like I said, be specific, and then maybe we can talk about the evidence. "Evolution" turns up about 2.5 million hits in
Google Scholar. Sure you want to be selective when discussing the subject?
Plus, as has been said already, the burden is on the one making the claim. You claim the evidence is fraudulent, but Ida is the only specific example I've seen you mention, and whether Ida's species is a direct human ancestor or not doesn't really have anything to do with the truth of evolution.
As for evolution being the underpinning of all biological science. That is simply bunk.
I will assume that you've never actually studied biological science in any depth.
Observable data is not dependent on evolution. Medicine is not dependent upon evolution at all.
MRSA, flu and a whole lot of other things disagree.
So, what you are claiming is that the reason for all progress in biological science is evolution?
I wonder who would honestly claim that. Of course it's not the reason for
all progress. But it is behind a significant proportion of it.
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.
Tiktaaaaaaaalik!!!
Look, when Mendel grew peas, they came out as peas. If the seeds still survive, they are still peas.
You are rambling incoherently. It would help if you occasionally indicated how one sentence connects to the other... Anyway, evolution says that you never step out of your ancestry, so Mendel's peas fit in just fine.
People have told me that DNA research has proven evolution. That is simply another evolutionist non sequiturs.
Please describe in your own words what a
non sequitur is.
If you think your genome information is so over-charged, why dont you volunteer to have the 85% of your unused DNA information extracted.
I think you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
I certainly haven't.
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.
I'm sorry? S1 is the first sacral vertebra, right? The one at the top of the pelvis?
Who the heck said that it was a leftover? It's not even at the end of the vertebral column, or vestigial, or useless, or anything
And taking it out would kinda... leave a gap in your spine. Of course no one wants it removed.
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.
What does the origin of life have to do with the theory of evolution?
(FYI, abiogenesis research has moved well past the primordial soup. We have promising things like
growing, dividing protocells now...)
Some of your most honored scientist have suggested alien seeding with a straight face. Talk about an infinite regression.
Talk about irrelevant arguments.
I do know that none you have addressed the evidence question that was originally raised.
Perhaps you weren't specific enough with your question?
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.
You know, it is possible to look at what scientists say and scrutinise it. It tends to be published in papers with detailed methodologies and piles of results. If the evidence is wrong, it's quite possible to find out.
