Blog debate : Proof of Evolution

[speakout]

Dawkinswatch Beats Down Atheists With Mrs Woods Special Driver Straight From Sweden « Dawkinswatch

Is there proof of evolution?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Is there proof of evolution?

Yep.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Of course there's proof of evolution. How else would a theory survive for 150 years, and be stronger than ever?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Evolution is a Victorian Age myth.

Not one single animal has ever evolved from another animal.

DNA makes that utterly impossible.

The tuatara, alleged to be the fastest evolving animal, hasn't evolved in over 200 million years. Similarly sharks and echinoids.

Cyanobacteria haven't evolved in over 2.8 billion years.

Archaea haven't evolved in over 3.6 billion years.

Furthermore, evolution has been empirically falsified and is not scientific.

"...Evolution makes the strong prediction that if a single fossil turned up in the wrong geological stratum, the theory would be blown out of the water. When challenged by a zealous Popperian to say how evolution could ever be falsified, J.B.S. Haldane famously growled: 'Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.'" -- Richard Dawkins, biologist, 2006

We now have 2 fossil animals in the wrong geological stratum. Namely, fossil ants and octopuses in the Cretaceous.

And if you don't believe that, then it is obvious you don't consider evolution to be a scientific theory.

"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme." -- Karl Popper, philosopher, 1976

 

[Hespera]

Evolution is a myth.

Not one single animal has ever evolved from another animal.

The tuatara, alleged to be the fastest evolving animal, hasn't evolved in over 200 million years. Similarly sharks and echinoids.

Cyanobacteria haven't evolved in over 2.8 billion years.

Archaea haven't evolved in over 3.6 billion years.

Furthermore, evolution has been empirically falsified and is not scientific.

"...Evolution makes the strong prediction that if a single fossil turned up in the wrong geological stratum, the theory would be blown out of the water. When challenged by a zealous Popperian to say how evolution could ever be falsified, J.B.S. Haldane famously growled: 'Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.'" -- Richard Dawkins, biologist, 2006

We now have 2 fossil animals in the wrong geological stratum. Namely, fossil ants and octopuses in the Cretaceous.

And if you don't believe that then it is obvious you don't consider evolution to be a scientific theory.

"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme." -- Karl Popper, philosopher, 1976

You are joking right? This is sounds like a parody of theocreology.

If you are not joking you are at the very best just playing cut and paste with things you know nothing about.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

You are joking right? This is sounds like a parody of theocreology.

If you are not joking you are at the very best just playing cut and paste with things you know nothing about.

Why do you think science is a joke?

Because it contradicts the religion of evolution?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Evolution is a Victorian Age myth.

Not one single animal has ever evolved from another animal.

The tuatara, alleged to be the fastest evolving animal, hasn't evolved in over 200 million years. Similarly sharks and echinoids.

Cyanobacteria haven't evolved in over 2.8 billion years.

Archaea haven't evolved in over 3.6 billion years.

Furthermore, evolution has been empirically falsified and is not scientific.

"...Evolution makes the strong prediction that if a single fossil turned up in the wrong geological stratum, the theory would be blown out of the water. When challenged by a zealous Popperian to say how evolution could ever be falsified, J.B.S. Haldane famously growled: 'Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.'" -- Richard Dawkins, biologist, 2006

We now have 2 fossil animals in the wrong geological stratum. Namely, fossil ants and octopuses in the Cretaceous.

And if you don't believe that, then it is obvious you don't consider evolution to be a scientific theory.

"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme." -- Karl Popper, philosopher, 1976

In your own words, can you please explain what endogenous retroviruses are?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

In your own words, can you please explain what endogenous retroviruses are?

What do retroviruses have to do with evolution?

Modern viruses have existed for millions if not billions of years.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Evolution is a Victorian Age myth.

Not one single animal has ever evolved from another animal.

DNA makes that utterly impossible.

The tuatara, alleged to be the fastest evolving animal, hasn't evolved in over 200 million years. Similarly sharks and echinoids.

Cyanobacteria haven't evolved in over 2.8 billion years.

Archaea haven't evolved in over 3.6 billion years.

Furthermore, evolution has been empirically falsified and is not scientific.

"...Evolution makes the strong prediction that if a single fossil turned up in the wrong geological stratum, the theory would be blown out of the water. When challenged by a zealous Popperian to say how evolution could ever be falsified, J.B.S. Haldane famously growled: 'Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.'" -- Richard Dawkins, biologist, 2006

We now have 2 fossil animals in the wrong geological stratum. Namely, fossil ants and octopuses in the Cretaceous.

And if you don't believe that, then it is obvious you don't consider evolution to be a scientific theory.

"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme." -- Karl Popper, philosopher, 1976

If ToE is a myth, was it pure dumb luck that lead Dr. Shubin to find Tiktaalik?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

What do retroviruses have to do with evolution?

Modern viruses have existed for millions if not billions of years.

ERVs have everything to do with evolution. Of course, if you understood this, you wouldn't be spouting nonsense.

Thanks for confirming what I already knew to be true.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

If ToE is a myth, was it pure dumb luck that lead Dr. Shubin to find Tiktaalik?

Simply yes.

"The history of cosmic theories can be called, without exaggeration, a history of collective obsessions and controlled schizophrenias, and the manner in which some discoveries have been made resemble the conduct of a sleepwalker, rather than the performance of an electronic brain." -- Arthur Koestler, polymath, 1959

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Simply yes.

"The history of cosmic theories can be called, without exaggeration, a history of collective obsessions and controlled schizophrenias, and the manner in which some discoveries have been made resemble the conduct of a sleepwalker, rather than the performance of an electronic brain." -- Arthur Koestler, polymath, 1959

Could you elaborate?

Dr. Shubin would say that he consulted geological surveys to locate rock of the proper age, in which a fishapod would be found. How was this lucky?

 

[Hespera]

Why do you think science is a joke?

Because it contradicts the religion of evolution?

well ok, its like that...

evolution isnt religion, and other fields of study in science support evolution. You'd really have to discard all of science to discard evolution. but never mind, you are talking from somewhere beyond reach.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

evolution isnt religion

Why do you believe evolution is not a religion?

and other fields of study in science support evolution.

No field of study supports evolution. All evidence contradicts evolution.

You'd really have to discard all of science to discard evolution.

What you call science, I call theology. Darwin was not trained as a scientist. He studied theology. That was his major.

but never mind, you are talking from somewhere beyond reach.

Maybe you should purchase a ladder.

 

[sfs]

Not one single animal has ever evolved from another animal.

DNA makes that utterly impossible.

What about DNA makes evolution of animals impossible?

We now have 2 fossil animals in the wrong geological stratum. Namely, fossil ants and octopuses in the Cretaceous.

Where did you get the idea that ants and octopuses couldn't have existed in the Cretaceous, according to evolution?

And if you don't believe that, then it is obvious you don't consider evolution to be a scientific theory.

No, it means I don't consider you a credible source of information about scientific topics.

"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme." -- Karl Popper, philosopher, 1976

"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. ...
The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological." -- Karl Popper, 1978

(Not that Popper's views on science are taken very seriously by philosophers these days.)

 

[sfs]

Why do you believe evolution is not a religion?

Evolution isn't a religion because it lacks the characteristics of a religion. It says nothing about divine or other supernatural agents, has no rituals, no sacred traditions, makes no claim to transcendent truth, and is studied by thousands of people who adhere to a wide range of real religions.

No field of study supports evolution. All evidence contradicts evolution.

Paleontology, biogeography, systematics and genetics all firmly support evolution, as is clear to anyone with even a passing knowledge of these fields.

What you call science, I call theology. Darwin was not trained as a scientist. He studied theology. That was his major.

This is among the sillier arguments I've seen. Darwin was not formally trained as a scientist, but you don't have to be formally trained. To be a scientist, you have to do science. Darwin did very good science indeed (even apart from his work on evolution), which is why he is universally regarded among scientists as one.

And of course, every major scientific organization around considers evolution to be science -- the NSF, the NIH, every research university on the planet, the National Academy of Sciences, the professional associations of biologists, geneticists, geologists, physicists, etc, and every significant scientific journal. You, however, know better. Uh huh.

 

[Hespera]

Why do you believe evolution is not a religion?


No field of study supports evolution. All evidence contradicts evolution.


What you call science, I call theology. Darwin was not trained as a scientist. He studied theology. That was his major.


Maybe you should purchase a ladder.

A debate doesnt involve someone just making nonsensical assertions such as "no field of study supports evolution. All evidence contradicts evolution."

"all evidence contradicts evolution" simply isnt so.

You know, Chinese are pretty smart sensible people. They dont seem to ahve any trouble understanding the ToE and working with it. if it didnt make sense, and their study in physics and chemistry say, showed it was nonsense, they'd just ignore it, the way they ignore creationism, astrology, atlantis, the secret moon base of the reptoids, etc.

They'd ignore it in the sense that they would not study it or do any work in it. But first they'd love to gleefully show how stupid the western theologists masquerading as scientists are, with their dopey evolution religion.

But hey, stay in history's dustbin, not my prob.

 

[Belk]

A debate doesnt involve someone just making nonsensical assertions such as "no field of study supports evolution. All evidence contradicts evolution."

"all evidence contradicts evolution" simply isnt so.

You know, Chinese are pretty smart sensible people. They dont seem to ahve any trouble understanding the ToE and working with it. if it didnt make sense, and their study in physics and chemistry say, showed it was nonsense, they'd just ignore it, the way they ignore creationism, astrology, atlantis, the secret moon base of the reptoids, etc.

They'd ignore it in the sense that they would not study it or do any work in it. But first they'd love to gleefully show how stupid the western theologists masquerading as scientists are, with their dopey evolution religion.

But hey, stay in history's dustbin, not my prob.

One does have to wonder how Creationist believe the TOE has been around as a scientific theory for over 150 years if it is falsified so thoroughly.

 

[Hespera]

One does have to wonder how Creationist believe the TOE has been around as a scientific theory for over 150 years if it is falsified so thoroughly.

I think its like....say you had a trusted kid, but the cookies are missing. You ask; he has the most convincing story, with wonderful details, you just could not help but believe it.

But then, you check the surveillance tape. And there he is, taking the cookies.

The theocreos are under the impression that the bible is their surveillance tape that makes all counter arguments and explanations silly.


i even ran across one who literally thought that whatever he said, which was literally whatever came to mind, was True, because god was speaking thru him. And whatever i said... oh wretched atheistic female asian.. was automatically nothing but cunning lies because the devil was speaking thru me.

I really didnt know anyone could be that out of touch but there it was.


I guess that guy Agonaces wanted me to get a ladder to try to get him out of his tree.

Maybe some day he will get himself down. i hope so.

 

[laconicstudent]

Evolution is a Victorian Age myth.

....and is also the unifying theory of the biological sciences today.

Not one single animal has ever evolved from another animal.

Try googling "Transition Fossils"

DNA makes that utterly impossible.

Try reading this Point mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The tuatara, alleged to be the fastest evolving animal, hasn't evolved in over 200 million years. Similarly sharks and echinoids.

Cite please.

Cyanobacteria haven't evolved in over 2.8 billion years.

Cite please.

Archaea haven't evolved in over 3.6 billion years.

Cite please.

Furthermore, evolution has been empirically falsified and is not scientific.

Wrong.

Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli — PNAS

The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that “replayed” evolution from different points in that population's history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 × 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 × 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability. Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.

"...Evolution makes the strong prediction that if a single fossil turned up in the wrong geological stratum, the theory would be blown out of the water. When challenged by a zealous Popperian to say how evolution could ever be falsified, J.B.S. Haldane famously growled: 'Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.'" -- Richard Dawkins, biologist, 2006

He was providing an example (which hasn't been found) that would pose a problem.

We now have 2 fossil animals in the wrong geological stratum. Namely, fossil ants and octopuses in the Cretaceous.

Nice bluff. I'm calling it.

And if you don't believe that, then it is obvious you don't consider evolution to be a scientific theory.

We don't believe you because the fact that you can't provide a source probably means you are bluffing

"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme." -- Karl Popper, philosopher, 1976

Oh wow! A quote from someone in an entirely different discipline from about 40 years ago!

What do retroviruses have to do with evolution?

Modern viruses have existed for millions if not billions of years.

Why do you believe evolution is not a religion?

Things that have proof typically don't require faith, which is a hallmark of religion.

No field of study supports evolution. All evidence contradicts evolution.

Cite please. I've already shown evidence that supports Evolution. You make a lot of claims you don't back up....