Blog debate : Proof of Evolution

[Belk]

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.

Reminds me of a conversation I had once with a Christian who even though she admitted she was a fallible human insisted there was absolutely no way she could be wrong about evolution because God had led her to the one absolutely positively correct interpretation of the bible.

 

[Wedjat]

Just wanted to remark on this because there was some slanderous things being said about my favorite little Sphenodontia

The tuatara, alleged to be the fastest evolving animal,

True, on the genetic level.

hasn't evolved in over 200 million years.

False.
Their evolutionary path separated from other reptiles 200 million years ago, that does not mean they stopped evolving, learn to read.
Fastest Evolving Creature is 'Living Dinosaur' | LiveScience

Also, I couldn't let this one pass

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

Ever wonder why you have to get a new flu vaccine every year?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Cite <staff edit>

Dear laconicstudent,

Given the fact that you require citations for all scientific facts, it is obvious that you haven't studied the falsified hypothesis of evolution. I would suggest you actually study evolution before you accuse those who have a command of the scientific facts of lying.

It is a scientific fact that the tuatara is alleged to be the fastest evolving animal.

New Zealand's 'Living Dinosaur' -- The Tuatara -- Is Surprisingly The Fastest Evolving Animal

New Zealand's 'Living Dinosaur' The Tuatara Is Surprisingly The Fastest Evolving Animal

Yet it is called a "living fossil" because it hasn't changed it's phenotype in over 200 million years.

Modern ants were found in the Cretaceous which contradicts evolution.

Fossil Shows Ants Evolved Much Earlier Than Thought - The New York Times

Researchers have found seven ants in amber that are among the oldest ever found, making it clear that what may be the world's most populous terrestrial creatures were underfoot and already diversifying when dinosaurs trod the earth.

A team from the American Museum of Natural History, led by Dr. David Grimaldi, curator of entomology, found seven ants that were about 92 million years old when they excavated a muddy site in New Jersey that is rich in amber, the researchers reported today in the journal Nature. The ants are of four species.

And modern octopuses were found in the Cretaceous which also contradicts evolution.

Cretaceous Octopus With Ink And Suckers -- The World's Least Likely Fossils?

ScienceDaily (Mar. 18, 2009) &#8212; New finds of 95 million year old fossils reveal much earlier origins of modern octopuses. These are among the rarest and unlikeliest of fossils. The chances of an octopus corpse surviving long enough to be fossilized are so small that prior to this discovery only a single fossil species was known, and from fewer specimens than octopuses have legs.

Even if you have never encountered an octopus in the flesh, the eight arms, suckers, and sack-like body are almost as familiar a body-plan as the four legs, tail and head of cats and dogs. Unlike our vertebrate cousins, however, octopuses don't have a well-developed skeleton. And while this famously allows them to squeeze into spaces that a more robust animal could not, it does create problems for scientists interested in evolutionary history.

Let us pray for the poor misguided souls who believe in evolution...

 

[Sanguis]

Dear laconicstudent,

Given the fact that you require citations for all scientific facts, it is obvious that you haven't studied the falsified hypothesis of evolution. I would suggest you actually study evolution before you accuse those who have a command of the scientific facts of lying.

<staff edit>

I suggest you stop researching things on creationist propaganda sites, and research them from reputable scientific papers.

Every single independent line of evidence leads to exactly the same conclusion: Evolution happens.

Every single tree drawn up from these independent lines of evidence fits perfectly over the top of the other trees, of the other lines of evidence. Don Exodus puts it better than I can:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CvX_mD5weM

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

False.
Their evolutionary path separated from other reptiles 200 million years ago, that does not mean they stopped evolving, learn to read.

What animal did the tuatara evolve into during the past 200 million years?

Ever wonder why you have to get a new flu vaccine every year?

I don't have to and I don't. It's utterly useless. And I'm not a slave to Obama's pharmaceutical corporations like some people.

 

[laconicstudent]

Dear laconicstudent,

Given the fact that you require citations for all scientific facts, it is obvious that you haven't studied the falsified hypothesis of evolution.

Which is normal in science.

I would suggest you actually study evolution before you accuse those who have a command of the scientific facts of lying.

I have. But it isn't my responsibility to source your claims, is it?

It is a scientific fact that the tuatara is alleged to be the fastest evolving animal.

New Zealand's 'Living Dinosaur' -- The Tuatara -- Is Surprisingly The Fastest Evolving Animal


Yet is is called a living fossil because it hasn't changed it's phenotype in over 200 million years.

And it has a remarkably high rate of genetic evolution. I fail to see how this interesting fact is relevant.

Modern ants were found in the Cretaceous which contradicts evolution.

Fossil Shows Ants Evolved Much Earlier Than Thought - The New York Times

Except the article at no point uses the word "Modern", does it?

Interesting.

And modern octopuses were found in the Cretaceous which also contradicts evolution.

Cretaceous Octopus With Ink And Suckers -- The World's Least Likely Fossils?

Not outright, it just means the theory has to be revised to account for the presence of cephalopods earlier then previously believed.

And again, the word "Modern" wasn't used.

And if you read the abstract of the actual papers, the researchers didn't consider it a problem, they just took it as evidence that the clade branched off from a different ancestor, and earlier.

Let us pray for the misguided souls who believe in evolution...

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

And it has a remarkably high rate of genetic evolution. I fail to see how this interesting fact is relevant.

If the tuatara is the fastest evolving animal, how come it hasn't evolved in 200 million years? What animal did the tuatara evolve into during the past 200 million years?

Except the article at no point uses the word "Modern", does it?

Interesting.

Do you know what earlier than thought means?

Not outright, it just means the theory has to be revised to account for the presence of cephalopods earlier then previously believed.

And again, the word "Modern" wasn't used.

The article specifically says modern octopuses.

Of course, if you would simply read the article and look at the evidence instead of invoking the religious authority of evolution you would know that.

ScienceDaily (Mar. 18, 2009) &#8212; New finds of 95 million year old fossils reveal much earlier origins of modern octopuses.

 

[laconicstudent]

I don't have to and I don't. It's utterly useless. And I'm not a slave to Obama's pharmaceutical corporations like some people.

*stares*

You have fun with that. Unfortunately, this virus kills, Lung Pathology in Fatal Novel Human Influenza A (H1N1) Infection -- Mauad et al., 10.1164/rccm.200909-1420OC -- American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine


And oddly, it looks like instead of being "Utterly useless", the vaccine was effective in 93% of subjects in clinical trial

NEJM -- Response after One Dose of a Monovalent Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Vaccine -- Preliminary Report

 

[laconicstudent]

If the tuatara is the fastest evolving animal, how come it hasn't evolved in 200 million years? What animal did the tuatara evolve into during the past 200 million years?

Itself, probably. Your own incredulity, and upset that it isn't happening fast enough isn't a falsification.

Do you know what earlier than thought means?

Yes. It means the theory will be adjusted to account for the earlier evolution of that particular clade.

The article specifically says modern octopuses.

The original article, the research article, doesn't describe the fossils as "Modern" anywhere.

Of course, if you would simply read the article and look at the evidence instead of invoking the religious authority of evolution you would know that.

If you read the primary source, you would see that you are drawing a conclusion not supported by the study.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Itself, probably.

So animals evolve into themselves?

Does that mean that no animal has ever evolved into another animal?

The original article, the research article, doesn't describe the fossils as "Modern" anywhere.

The article I posted, the one you are deliberately ignoring, specifically says modern octopuses.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

A of S, are you a conspiracy theorist?

If theory of evolution is a "failed hypothesis" as you assert, how was it then that Dr. Shubin was able to use ToE to make a prediction, and subsequently prove it?

Patiently waiting your reply.

BTW, I'm not sure who it was that mentioned genetics falsifying evolution, but this will be quite a shock to molecular geneticists conducting primary research and gene sequencing. In fact, with molecular genetics, Darwin and fossils are not even needed to prove our evolutionary history.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

A of S, are you a conspiracy theorist?

If theory of evolution is a "failed hypothesis" as you assert, how was it then that Dr. Shubin was able to use ToE to make a prediction, and subsequently prove it?

Patiently waiting your reply.

If the Earth revolves around the Sun, how was it that Ptolemy was able to predict eclipses?

BTW, I'm not sure who it was that mentioned genetics falsifying evolution, but this will be quite a shock to molecular geneticists conducting primary research and gene sequencing. In fact, with molecular genetics, Darwin and fossils are not even needed to prove our evolutionary history.

I said it. DNA makes evolution utterly impossible. If you want pigs to fly or a velociraptor to magically fly off into the sunset you're going to need to pray a lot harder...

 

[laconicstudent]

So animals evolve into themselves?

Does that mean that no animal has ever evolved into another animal?

We both know that isn't what I said.

The article I posted, the one you are deliberately ignoring, specifically says modern octopuses.

No, what the article actually says is this:

"These are sensational fossils, extraordinarily well preserved," says Dirk Fuchs of the Freie University Berlin, lead author of the report. But what surprised the scientists most was how similar the specimens are to modern octopus: "these things are 95 million years old, yet one of the fossils is almost indistinguishable from living species." This provides important evolutionary information. "The more primitive relatives of octopuses had fleshy fins along their bodies. The new fossils are so well preserved that they show, like living octopus, that they didn't have these structures." This pushes back the origins of modern octopus by tens of millions of years, and while this is scientifically significant, perhaps the most remarkable thing about these fossils is that they exist at all.

"almost indistinguishable" does not equal being the exact same species.

And you miss, over and over again, that your conclusion is contradicted by the primary source.

 

[laconicstudent]

I said it. DNA makes evolution utterly impossible.

Good thing you are also flat out wrong. I already refuted this with Lenski's study.

If you want pigs to fly or a velociraptor to magically fly off into the sunset you're going to need to pray a lot harder...

Of course, that isn't what Evolution is, but I suppose we need to see this straw man at least once in each thread.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

We both know that isn't what I said.

I didn't say you said anything, I asked you 2 questions and you failed to answer both of them.

No, what the article actually says is this:

Why are you deliberately ignoring the "modern octopuses" quote?

Cretaceous Octopus With Ink And Suckers -- The World's Least Likely Fossils?

ScienceDaily (Mar. 18, 2009) &#8212; New finds of 95 million year old fossils reveal much earlier origins of modern octopuses. ...

... it does create problems for scientists interested in evolutionary history.

 

[laconicstudent]

I didn't say you said anything, I asked you 2 questions and you failed to answer both of them.

That's because they were stupid straw men.

Why are you deliberately ignoring the "modern octopuses" quote?

Because you are taking it out of context. Anyone can see that it states that the fossils are "nearly indistinguishable" but it isn't saying they are the same species, which is something you are making up.

Cretaceous Octopus With Ink And Suckers -- The World's Least Likely Fossils?

Ok, since you seem utterly fixated, and incapable of finding the link at the foot of the article, I'll spoon feed it to you.


"NEW OCTOPODS (CEPHALOPODA: COLEOIDEA) FROM THE LATE CRETACEOUS (UPPER CENOMANIAN) OF HÂKEL AND HÂDJOULA, LEBANON" Dirk Fuchs et al. Paleontology. Volume 52, Issue 1. Pages 65-81. December 31, 2008.

Abstract:

Three previously unknown octopods are described from Upper Cenomanian limestones of the Hâqel and Hâdjoula localities (Lebanon). Keuppia levante, Keuppia hyperbolaris gen. nov,. sp. nov. and Styletoctopus annae gen. nov, . sp. nov. gen. nov., sp. nov., are regarded as the earliest representatives of the Octopoda (= Incirrata). This assumption is mainly based on their medially isolated bipartite gladius vestige. As can be inferred from growth increments, Keuppia gen. nov. can be distinguished from the genus Palaeoctopus by blades that grow forwards along their longitudinal axis. The gladius vestige of Keuppia hyperbolaris sp. nov. differs from that of Keuppia levante sp. nov. in having a more heterogeneous course of growth lines. Based on a pair of widely separated stylets, which closely resemble the rods of modern octopods, Styletoctopus annae gen. nov., sp. nov. is assigned to the Recent family Octopodidae. Peculiar encrustations, which are situated in close association with the gladius vestiges of Keuppia levante sp. nov., Keuppia hyperbolaris sp. nov., and Styletoctopus annae sp. nov. are interpreted as basal fin cartilages. The gladius vestige morphology of Keuppia hyperbolaris sp. nov. and Keuppia levante sp. nov. opens the possibility that both the Octopda and the Cirroctopoda originated from loligosepiid vampyropods instead of teudopseid. The surprising existence of a stylet-like gladius vestige in Styletoctopus annae sp. nov. suggests that the octopod clade branched off much earlier than previously believed. Octopod apomorphies such as the development of stylets, loss of fins and cirri must have been occurred before the Cenomanian.

In case it escapes you, they are in entirely different Geni from other members of Order Octopa. And look at the last sentence. It would seem that they bear features that distinguish them and aren't present in any modern species of octopi.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

It is obvious you aren't interested in answering questions or examining scientific evidence which contradicts evolutionary theology. Have fun.

 

[laconicstudent]

It is obvious you aren't interested in answering questions or examining scientific evidence

I'm the only one to have cited research so far. Its you whose apparently not interested in scientific evidence.

which contradicts evolutionary theology. Have fun.

Lol at the ad hominem on science. Its interesting how you run when I post actual research.

 

[speakout]

If there is proof of evolution why are all the ape men fake,

Piltdown Man

Nebraska man

Peking Man?

Why will you give us real evidence?

 

[Sanguis]

If there is proof of evolution why are all the ape men fake,

Piltdown Man

Nebraska man

Peking Man?

Why will you give us real evidence?

Note how none of them have taxonomic classifications?

Try Homo Habilis.
Try H. Erectus.
Try H. Heidelbergensis.
Try Australopithicus Afarensis
Try A. Africanus.

The fakes you mentioned were exposed because they didn't work. Who do you think it was that exposed them, people who accept evolution, or creationists?

They're fakes that most creationist propaganda sites take them, and blow them out of proportion. They fell at the first hurdle that all the other, real, evidence passed with flying colours - peer review.