Blog debate : Proof of Evolution

[laconicstudent]

You don't provide evidence or sources so if you're really interested in evidence, which I honestly doubt, you can google them.

No, learn that Burden of Proof rests with the one making the positive claim.

 

[Tenka]

Ignoring evidence does not cause it to cease to exist.

Ignoring my reasons for dismissing your evidence is not the same as a refutation. I analysed your examples and they are just not substantial.

Modern Homo sapiens are hundreds of millions of years old and existed even in the Cambrian Period.

New PRATT already?

Here's my copy paste refutation The "Meister Print"

See how easy that is?

Also, this is the "shoe print"

Note how it only approximates (remember this is the 2 halves of the split specimen..not two different imprints) the dimensions of a foot, but has none of the features of a real footprint such as very distinctive pressure deformations, it is a vaguely foot dimensioned blob.

In conclusion, it no more resembles a foot print than this

does a human heart.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

No, learn that Burden of Proof rests with the one making the positive claim.

That's precisely why I reject Darwin.

No evidence = no proof.

The only scientific evidence we have contradicts Darwin and evolution.

"I think that if it was pointed out to him that after 150 years, because he wrote his book Origin of Species 150 years ago, it was published in 1859, I think if he were able to come today and see after 150 years that so much fossil evidence has accumulated that contradicts his theory, I think that he might be willing to change it. But for many of his supporters today, his theory is not so much a scientific idea, but an ideology which cannot be questioned. And it's people like that, you know, his supporters today, who aren't willing to listen to evidence that contradicts their theories, who have now a government enforced monopoly so that their ideas only can be taught in the education systems in most countries in the world including the United States, who really object to what I'm saying. I don't think Darwin himself would object to what I'm saying. I think he'd listen. And, I think, he would be willing to change his ideas in the face of evidence. But many of his supporters today, they don't want to hear evidence that contradicts their theory, they try to suppress that evidence, they try to restrict those who want to speak about that evidence. " -- Michael A. Cremo, author, March 19th 2008

 

[laconicstudent]

That's precisely why I reject Darwin.

No evidence = no proof.

The only scientific evidence we have contradicts Darwin and evolution.

You must be getting tired of being shown research. If you stopped ignoring it, I would stop repeating my refutation. Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli — PNAS

T
"I think that if it was pointed out to him that after 150 years, because he wrote his book Origin of Species 150 years ago, it was published in 1859, I think if he were able to come today and see after 150 years that so much fossil evidence has accumulated that contradicts his theory, I think that he might be willing to change it. But for many of his supporters today, his theory is not so much a scientific idea, but an ideology which cannot be questioned. And it's people like that, you know, his supporters today, who aren't willing to listen to evidence that contradicts their theories, who have now a government enforced monopoly so that their ideas only can be taught in the education systems in most countries in the world including the United States, who really object to what I'm saying. I don't think Darwin himself would object to what I'm saying. I think he'd listen. And, I think, he would be willing to change his ideas in the face of evidence. But many of his supporters today, they don't want to hear evidence that contradicts their theory, they try to suppress that evidence, they try to restrict those who want to speak about that evidence. " -- Michael A. Cremo, author, March 19th 2008

Oh yea, the quote from one anonymous author falsifies 150 years of research proving Evolution.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Oh yea, the quote from one anonymous idiot author falsifies 150 years of research proving Evolution.

Michael Cremo is not anonymous. This is simply yet another Darwinist attempt to lie, trick, and deceive others and to bear false witness by deliberately misstating the facts.

Here is your so-called "anonymous" author: Forbidden Archeology - Michael A. Cremo

If you want to persuade anyone other than yourself and the other residents of Meinong's Jungle, you're going to have to at least make a minor attempt at honesty and intellectual integrity.

P.S. Gammaproteobacteria such as E. Coli are billions of years old and haven't evolved one cell in several billion years.

 

[laconicstudent]

Michael Cremo is not anonymous. This is simply yet another Darwinist attempt to trick and deceive others and to bear false witness by deliberately mistating the facts.

Here is your so-called "anonymous" author: Forbidden Archeology - Michael A. Cremo

If you want to persuade anyone other than yourself and the other residents of Meinong's Jungle, you're going to have to at least make a minor attempt at honesty and intellectual integrity.

Oh my gosh! An author disagrees with scientific research!

By the way, the Supreme Ayatollah also disagrees with your religion. By your logic, you should hurry up and apostatize.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Oh my gosh! An author disagrees with scientific research!

It doesn't matter whether an author agrees or disagrees.

All that matters is that the physical and scientific evidence falsifies evolution.

By the way, the Supreme Ayatollah also disagrees with your religion. By your logic, you should hurry up and apostatize.

Well at least now I know who your ultimate scientific authority is.

 

[laconicstudent]

It doesn't matter whether an author agrees or disagrees.

All that matters is that the physical and scientific evidence falsifies evolution.

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

Well at least now I know who your ultimate scientific authority is.

LOL

 

[laconicstudent]

And just again, because I know you'll ignore it anyways

http://scottklarr.com/media/atheism/creationistPosterFull.png

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.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I rest my case.

The change I observe is from superior organisms to inferior organisms and it's called devolution.

Define 'superior' and 'inferior'. We have seen species evolve to survive in an environment that would kill their ancestors, or to acquire new, useful traits: E. coli that evolved to ingest citric acid, bacteria that evolved to ingest nylon, etc.

Why do you believe bunnies are fossils and octopuses aren't?

The bunnies are examples of hypothetical fossils that, if discovered, would overturn the modern consensus. The fossil octopus, which is real, do not overturn the consensus.

Dawkins said otherwise.

Dawkins did't say it had to be a bunny. He said and I quote (these are his words not mine) "a single fossil in the wrong geological stratum."

Dawkins talk of a single fossil in the wrong stratum. Since the octopus fossil is not in the wrong strata, your point is moot.

You must be the only person who wasn't surprised because every scientist who wrote on the topic was surprised and some evolutionists claimed it had been planted there (perhaps by an agent of the devil?).

That octopuses lived during the Cretaceous is not what's surprising: the fossil is surprising because it's a soft-bodied organism, and they are extremely rare to fossilise.

A fossil of a modern octopus in the Cretaceous. What's the difference? I thought you've already conceded that evolution means animals can stay exactly the same for billions of years.

Billions of years is a stretch, but yes, it's possible for a species to superficially (or even biochemically) resemble its distant ancestors. However, this is not always the case: more often than note, the modern descendants will not resemble its distant ancestors, since the environment in which the population has lived is rarely the same over the millennia. Exceptions exist, of course, but that's the general trend.

In the case of the octopus, there are clear features which put it distinct from its modern octopuses. In other words, octopuses have evolved since the Cretaceous, as this fossil clearly shows.

I'll have to look into this further.

That's my point. The differences are non-existent in my view. And the same with every other ancient organism including man.

Then clean your view. The differences are there for all to see. It's not exactly shrouded in secrecy; you can bring up countless images of fossils for your examination. You can browse thousands of published papers on fossils that document evolution. You can go into pretty much any museums and look at the fossils yourself.

How are species created if not by evolution?

Answer the question. Where does evolution say that a giraffe can give birth to an octopus?

If that's true, then why do evolutionists ignore evidence that contradicts their faith?

You're begging the question: despite constant calls to present this alleged evidence, anti-evolutionists (for want of a better word) have yet to cite any. We evolutionists, on the other hand, have been accumulating evidence for 150 years.

Wrong. Stars are not made entirely of hydrogen and helium.

I beg to differ. With the exception of stars on the verge of death, the vast majority of a star is hydrogen plasma, with a sizeable minority being helium. A tiny fraction is lithium and heavier elements.

Hydrogen is formed in the corona as predicted by Hoyle: Solar Flare Surprise: Stream Of Perfectly Intact Hydrogen Atoms Detected

The sun is a mass of buring iron as claimed by Anaxagoras: The surface of the Sun:The sun has a rigid iron surface located under the photosphere that is revealed by satellite imagery. The solar surface sits beneath the sun's visible photosphere and is electrically active.

The Sun is a ball of Iron!

Oh joy, another crank.

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the hydrogen model.

I don't believe faith based science is concerned with evidence.

That you think evolution is a 'faith' is laughable at best. As I said, evidence-based beliefs are not faiths, so evolution is not a faith.

 

[CoderHead]

I'm so far behind on this thread, but I have to ask a question because this bugs me.

Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.

How did they infallibly determine that the universe hasn't existed for eternity and fail to state any justification whatsoever? If they determined that it has a finite age infallibly, then they should have a number to back that up. Otherwise, it's just a guess.

It's the same as me saying, "I know for a fact that you aren't 20, but I have no idea how old you are." And since your age doesn't display on this forum, you could be 20, for all I know.

The universe approaches the limit of infinite age.

Are you saying the universe isn't infinite, but it's close enough to be debatable? What do you mean by "approaches the limit?"

The Earth is believed to be 4.6 billion years old but it is probably older than that.

"Believed to be?" "Probably?" Hasn't the church infallibly determined an age for the Earth either?

 

[brinny]

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

then why is it still a theory?

 

[Hespera]

then why is it still a theory?

It is still a theory, brinny. And it will stay that way. i think that evolution is a fact, but scientific theory by its very nature can never be proven.

We did notice several times where the resident theocreo in this thread has nade the statement that the ToE has been falsified, but one can also say the moon is made of green cheese.

if it were so easy and obvious a thing to falsify then there would be no problem doing it, and ToE would be gone along with the theory that the four elements were earth air fire and water.

Geology, physics, chemistry etc all interlace with ToE in any number of ways, and really, to disprove ToE would involve also disproving so much that goes into all branches of science thatpretty much all of scientifc theory would have to bee thrown out.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

then why is it still a theory?

Because that's the highest any claim can go. 'Theory' just means 'supported by the evidence'. The theory of evolution is still a theory because there is fundamentally no way to prove any claim with 100% accuracy, outside of pure logic.

That said, there is more then enough evidence for evolution to consider it a scientific fact. We have more reason to believe in evolution than we do the existence of atoms.

 

[brinny]

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

Is there proof of evolution?

Here's the bottom line spoken by Dawkins himself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk9cXJ1MljI

Science doesn't know.​

and here's my take on those not knowing limitations: Science, it appears, is limited. It cannot explain the un-fathomable, the inexplicable, and is based on the limited perceptions of flawed man. It can go no further, and never has, in the history of mankind, it has not. Even a child can see the night sky and perceive there are phenomena bigger than they are. SOMETHING had to put all of it in place. SOMETHING BIGGER than that child. Even a child can sense that there is something inexplicable happening when they are happy, sad, in awe of something they canot explain. Even a child senses there is an inexplicable part of them that is the well spring of their emotions and that there's a part of them that is as unique as their thumb print, and that there is no one as unique as them and never will be. Even a child knows the difference between feeling loved and hated or despised. Even a child knows there is a reason for that. And even a child senses that the reason we soooo need to be loved, and why we respond to love is because there is a Being Who DOES love us, and even a child knows that THAT is what makes life worth living.

Science, in its current way of presenting itself has the audacity to, although it cannot explain the inexplicable, says, in essence, "go over there and play with your toys...we don't talk about such things"......same thing. Reminds me of Kay in the Snow Queen story. He was encased in an icy world and was compelled to mechanically form chards of icy triangles non-stop.

Scioence, in its purest form, is full of wonder at the inexplicable, for science would recognize its limitations and realize there is so much further to go, and out of curiousity, continue on....not throw out the inexplicable, like the God so many believe in, Who is inexplicable, and science, honestly must recognize this, and explore those multitudes of inexplicable components that make up the human psyche that connects with an inexplicable God, instead of saying "go over there and play withy your toys..we don't talk about such things".

It would be a start.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
then why is it still a theory?

It is still a theory, brinny. And it will stay that way. i think that evolution is a fact, but scientific theory by its very nature can never be proven.

We did notice several times where the resident theocreo in this thread has nade the statement that the ToE has been falsified, but one can also say the moon is made of green cheese.

if it were so easy and obvious a thing to falsify then there would be no problem doing it, and ToE would be gone along with the theory that the four elements were earth air fire and water.

Geology, physics, chemistry etc all interlace with ToE in any number of ways, and really, to disprove ToE would involve also disproving so much that goes into all branches of science thatpretty much all of scientifc theory would have to bee thrown out.

Perhaps that would be a start.

 

[Psudopod]

Perhaps that would be a start.

So what do you suggest we replace it with?

 

[brinny]

Because that's the highest any claim can go. 'Theory' just means 'supported by the evidence'. The theory of evolution is still a theory because there is fundamentally no way to prove any claim with 100% accuracy, outside of pure logic.

That said, there is more then enough evidence for evolution to consider it a scientific fact. We have more reason to believe in evolution than we do the existence of atoms.

then why is it not called a fact? Is anything in science considered fact?

 

[CoderHead]

Is anything in science considered fact?

Yes. Evolution.

 

[Psudopod]

and here's my take on those not knowing limitations: Science, it appears, is limited. It cannot explain the un-fathomable, the inexplicable, and is based on the limited perceptions of flawed man. It can go no further, and never has, in the history of mankind, it has not.

It's not that science cannot explain, it just hasn't explained. Previously, we didn't understand the weather, now we have a good understanding. We can cure may diseases and prevent many others, but not all. In the future, the number of diseases that cause problems to mankind will likely to be much lower, as our understanding grows. We can talk to people across the world, travel several times the speed of sound, all through our understanding gained from science. We don't know it all yet, but that's no reason to stop looking, is it?