Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
so called evo evidence
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Naraoia" data-source="post: 51905067" data-attributes="member: 202689"><p><img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/sigh.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":sigh:" title="sigh :sigh:" data-shortname=":sigh:" /></p><p></p><p>For the lurkers' sake...</p><p></p><p> Do I smell an accusation of fraud? Do I smell accusing pretty much every single scientist who ever studied evolution of fraud?</p><p></p><p> Evidence please.</p><p></p><p> Oh, Ida. A single fossil touted as more than it is does in no way cast doubt on "much" of the evidence for evolution.</p><p></p><p> 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 <em>all</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>However, for your education: the geological column apparently <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/" target="_blank">does exist</a>.</p><p></p><p>Right. Mutations can be reversed. So if A --> T is a loss of information, is T --> A at the same position <em>also</em> a loss of information? Something is fishy about the logic here.</p><p></p><p>Is gene duplication a loss of information?</p><p></p><p> Define information, please, and demonstrate how this statement is true.</p><p></p><p> No.</p><p></p><p>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...</p><p></p><p> 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"?</p><p></p><p> That's not necessarily positive...</p><p></p><p> Believing something based on absolute shiploads of evidence is hardly "faith".</p><p></p><p> 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?</p><p></p><p> Evidence, please. Remember, a fraction of a per cent does not a "tendency" make.</p><p></p><p> 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.</p><p></p><p>Also, refer back to the mutation/information argument a few paragraphs back.</p><p></p><p> Examples, please.</p><p></p><p> Evidence for what? Be specific for once, please.</p><p></p><p> 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.</p><p></p><p> Yes.</p><p></p><p>If nothing else, evolution lets us understand why so many things in living organisms are <a href="http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm" target="_blank">useless or counterproductive</a> <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></p><p></p><p> Is "conclusory" even a word?</p><p></p><p> For <em>any</em> reason? I think you'd lose the bet.</p><p></p><p> Can anyone count all the fallacies in this paragraph?</p><p></p><p>There's a <a href="http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/slippery-slope/" target="_blank">slippery slope</a> 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.</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>Sorry, man, but the truth of a belief doesn't depend on the moral qualities of the believer.</p><p></p><p> What does that have to do with evolution?</p><p></p><p> Who are you to say that they are not?</p><p></p><p> What does that have to do with evolution?</p><p></p><p>Maybe, with your <em>vastly superior moral compass</em>, you could try judging people's morality by their <em>actions</em>, not their religious views. Would you say that a Christian who kills and rapes is moral?</p><p></p><p> Indeed your telepathy skills must be very good to read people's mind from the other end of the continent/earth.</p><p></p><p> Evidence, please.</p><p></p><p> Evidence, please.</p><p></p><p> Like I said, be specific, and then maybe we can talk about the evidence. "Evolution" turns up about 2.5 million hits in <a href="http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=evolution&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>. Sure you want to be selective when discussing the subject?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p> I will assume that you've never actually studied biological science in any depth.</p><p></p><p> MRSA, flu and a whole lot of other things disagree.</p><p></p><p> I wonder who would honestly claim that. Of course it's not the reason for <em>all</em> progress. But it is behind a significant proportion of it.</p><p></p><p> <em>Tiktaaaaaaaalik</em>!!! <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/amen.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":amen:" title="Amen :amen:" data-shortname=":amen:" /></p><p></p><p> 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.</p><p></p><p></p><p> Please describe in your own words what a <em>non sequitur</em> is. </p><p></p><p> I think you haven't a clue what you're talking about. <em>I</em> certainly haven't.</p><p></p><p> I'm sorry? S1 is the first sacral vertebra, right? The one at the top of the pelvis?</p><p></p><p>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 <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/scratch.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":scratch:" title="scratch :scratch:" data-shortname=":scratch:" /> And taking it out would kinda... leave a gap in your spine. Of course no one wants it removed.</p><p></p><p> What does the origin of life have to do with the theory of evolution?</p><p></p><p>(FYI, abiogenesis research has moved well past the primordial soup. We have promising things like <a href="http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Zhu_2009_JACS.pdf" target="_blank">growing, dividing protocells</a> now...)</p><p></p><p> Talk about irrelevant arguments.</p><p></p><p> Perhaps you weren't specific enough with your question?</p><p></p><p> 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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Naraoia, post: 51905067, member: 202689"] :sigh: For the lurkers' sake... Do I smell an accusation of fraud? Do I smell accusing pretty much every single scientist who ever studied evolution of fraud? Evidence please. Oh, Ida. A single fossil touted as more than it is does in no way cast doubt on "much" of the evidence for evolution. 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 [I]all[/I] 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 [URL="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/"]does exist[/URL]. Right. Mutations can be reversed. So if A --> T is a loss of information, is T --> A at the same position [I]also[/I] a loss of information? Something is fishy about the logic here. Is gene duplication a loss of information? Define information, please, and demonstrate how this statement is true. 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... 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"? That's not necessarily positive... Believing something based on absolute shiploads of evidence is hardly "faith". 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? Evidence, please. Remember, a fraction of a per cent does not a "tendency" make. 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. Examples, please. Evidence for what? Be specific for once, please. 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. Yes. If nothing else, evolution lets us understand why so many things in living organisms are [URL="http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm"]useless or counterproductive[/URL] :P Is "conclusory" even a word? For [I]any[/I] reason? I think you'd lose the bet. Can anyone count all the fallacies in this paragraph? There's a [URL="http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/slippery-slope/"]slippery slope[/URL] 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. What does that have to do with evolution? Who are you to say that they are not? What does that have to do with evolution? Maybe, with your [I]vastly superior moral compass[/I], you could try judging people's morality by their [I]actions[/I], not their religious views. Would you say that a Christian who kills and rapes is moral? Indeed your telepathy skills must be very good to read people's mind from the other end of the continent/earth. Evidence, please. Evidence, please. Like I said, be specific, and then maybe we can talk about the evidence. "Evolution" turns up about 2.5 million hits in [URL="http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=evolution&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search"]Google Scholar[/URL]. 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. I will assume that you've never actually studied biological science in any depth. MRSA, flu and a whole lot of other things disagree. I wonder who would honestly claim that. Of course it's not the reason for [I]all[/I] progress. But it is behind a significant proportion of it. [I]Tiktaaaaaaaalik[/I]!!! :amen: 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. Please describe in your own words what a [I]non sequitur[/I] is. I think you haven't a clue what you're talking about. [I]I[/I] certainly haven't. 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 :scratch: And taking it out would kinda... leave a gap in your spine. Of course no one wants it removed. 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 [URL="http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Zhu_2009_JACS.pdf"]growing, dividing protocells[/URL] now...) Talk about irrelevant arguments. Perhaps you weren't specific enough with your question? 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
so called evo evidence
Top
Bottom