The evidence for Evolution.

[Jimmy D]

There's that imagination again. Fact is fact, opinion of what the facts mean are not necessarily fact. Evolution is far from irrefutable.

You're wrong there mate, show us one piece of scientific evidence that refutes the theory of evolution, if what you say is true it should be easy.

Also, what you are actually saying, at least in context to what you replied to, is if I choose to wait for a decision on if it is truly irrefutable, a decision that really matters, I am deluded?

Eh? I'm saying that the evidence is freely available and cannot be refuted, whether you accept it or not. If you are waiting for a court of law to make a pronouncement however, you are deluded.

So, I could easily say with pretzel logic like that, *you* are deluded and what I said makes perfect sense. You are seeing what you want to see again. You want to demean so you see reason to demean, whether it is there or not. Clear you are out of arguments as well.

You could say such a thing, it wouldn't change the fact that the Theory of Evolution has a mountain of evidence behind it.

And you really expect me to accept some of your conclusions after revealing a thought process like that?

Of course I don't, it's easier for you to deny the facts than face up to the reality that what you believe about the Bible can't possibly be true.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're wrong there mate, show us one piece of scientific evidence that refutes the theory of evolution, if what you say is true it should be easy.

Time.

It will kill evolution dead in its tracks.

If Einstein is correct, and time is a physical property of the universe, then there you go: you don't have enough of it.

You know those ingredients that say, "Just add water"?

Evolution is like that: "Just add time."

For the record, can you tell me how many times throughout history time has been adjusted to fit a paradigm?

Let me guess:

Those records are [conveniently] not kept?

 

[Jimmy D]

Time.

It will kill evolution dead in its tracks.

3 billion odd years seems like enough to me.

If Einstein is correct, and time is a physical property of the universe, then there you go: you don't have enough of it.

Why? When did Einstein suggest life on Earth began?

You know those ingredients that say, "Just add water"?

Evolution is like that: "Just add time."

If you say so.

For the record, can you tell me how many times throughout history time has been adjusted to fit a paradigm?

Let me guess:

Those records are [conveniently] not kept?

I would ask what you're going on about, but I'm not really interested.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That would depend on what you mean by "worked so well."

Easy: it accounts for all the facts within its scope and it can't be shown to be wrong, eventhough it makes a gazi-billion testable predictions.

There is no goal to evolution, homo sapiens are not the pinnacle of anything.

Indeed.

More than 99% of all species to have ever existed are now extinct.

Yep.

The vast majority of life don't even make it to adulthood. Is that working well?

When Speedwell said that it "works well", he's not talking about the process itself.... he's talking about the scientific model that explains and accounts for the process. That model works very well.

The process itself works well also, btw. After some 3.8 billion years, life is still abundant on this planet and all of it is well adapted to the niche they inhabit.

At any rate, it seems a meaningless statement as evolution just happens, there is no guide or goal.

What is truelly meaningless, is argue against ideas that aren't even expressed...

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Show me what they got right. I'll wait. Matter of fact, I've been waiting for awhile but no one seems to be able to bring forth anything at all.

As far as the tired old line "are you smarter than all those smart scientists" nope, but God is...are you smarter than him?

Well, Thanks for waiting then! I'm glad you could hang around...
Now, As for what they got right, they got the facts right for a start - I'll copy/paste their conclusion for you:

The results support the hypothesis that intervertebral disc herniation preferentially affects individuals with vertebrae that are towards the ancestral end of the range of shape variation within H. sapiens and therefore are less well adapted for bipedalism. This finding not only has clinical implications but also illustrates the benefits of bringing the tools of evolutionary biology to bear on problems in medicine and public health.

So, to help you understand this, they've identified a correlation where people with the lower Human vertebrae that are identical to the Chimpanzees lower vertebrae (which, incidentally is identical to that of early hominids & our common ancestor), are demonstrably more susceptible to lower back pain than Humans with a more appropriately supported vertebrae shape for walking upright... So, your turn now, Have they gone wrong somewhere? If so, plead your case, cite the data and/or methods you have a problem with and explain why it's wrong.

So, on my being smarter than your God, I'll take that challenge. I propose something easy to start off.... ummm....thinking.... I Know! How about we cite Pi to as accurate as we can & write the results of our pondering somewhere for all to see?

Here's mine: 3.141592653589.

Let me know how your God gets on with this, perhaps he could get himself an account on here, provide some irrefutable proof that it is actually a God (say, I have a unique number in my wallet, surely he can recite that to me as proof that he is who he is?), and once he's identified himself irrefutably, he can write down how many decimal places he knows Pi to in reply to this post.

Failing irrefutable proof of identity, I'm happy to just search the bible for that answer...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... they've identified a correlation where people with the lower Human vertebrae that are identical to the Chimpanzees lower vertebrae (which, incidentally is identical to that of early hominids & our common ancestor), are demonstrably more susceptible to lower back pain than Humans <that have evolved>/<with> a more appropriately supported vertebrae shape for walking upright...

I'd suggest a minor correction, replacing the bolded 'that have evolved' with 'with'. Humans evolve as a species, so there aren't particular humans that have evolved a different vertebral shape than others, but there is a range of variation of shape (that natural selection acts on, long term) centered around a slightly better shape for bipedalism than that of chimps. The point remains the same. [/pedant]

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I'd suggest a minor correction, replacing the bolded 'that have evolved' with 'with'. Humans evolve as a species, so there aren't particular humans that have evolved a different vertebral shape than others, but there is a range of variation of shape (that natural selection acts on, long term) centered around a slightly better shape for bipedalism than that of chimps. The point remains the same. [/pedant]

Ooh! Thanks for that, reads better...

 

[SteveB28]

And I told you it could simply be because all animals were made from the same stuff and that is all they have in common.

Now, what you have done there is to actually adopt a scientific approach......good for you! You've suggested an hypothesis. So let's follow it through.....

Unfortunately, your hypothesis is foundering at the first hurdle. But that's fine, as this is the way science works.......put forward an hypothesis and then test it.

If all animals were "made from the same stuff" as you so poetically posit, then we should find that those identical ERV locations would be found in ALL animal life.....but we don't.

In fact, we find a perfect correlation between ERV markers and the nested hierarchy that is supported through other evidentiary means. There are shared ERV locations that apply for humans and chimpanzees. There are OTHERS that are shared by humans and gorillas. There are OTHERS that are shared by humans, gorillas and chimpanzees. And so on.

Your "all made of the same stuff" hypothesis fails.

But keep trying......

That is no reason to believe one turned into the other.

And nor is that suggested. Chimpanzees did not "turn into" humans. The evidence reveals a COMMON ANCESTOR, which is a different proposition entirely.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Your "all made of the same stuff" hypothesis fails.

But keep trying......

And your proves evolution?

Or fact is, even scientists insist, their science proves nothing, so bottom line, we either allow anything science comes up with to convince us or we don't....I don't, you do.

So, to help you understand this, they've identified a correlation where people with the lower Human vertebrae that are identical to the Chimpanzees lower vertebrae (which, incidentally is identical to that of early hominids & our common ancestor), are demonstrably more susceptible to lower back pain than Humans with a more appropriately supported vertebrae shape for walking upright... So, your turn now, Have they gone wrong somewhere? If so, plead your case, cite the data and/or methods you have a problem with and explain why it's wrong.

Bug, I've been accused of not considering the facts, while that is simply not the case. I even asked for further explanation on some things and considered all that was said in spite of the claims I did not. Just like a recent conversation with a christian, If I don't agree he is right, it seems, I didn't consider what was told me.

However on this lower back pain thing, If I didn't make myself clear already, I will no longer give it any serious consideration. Wild, out of the blue assumptions are rampant enough here but that?...just no. I'll plead no case against something I think is nonsense....spent too much time on it already.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You're wrong there mate, show us one piece of scientific evidence that refutes the theory of evolution, if what you say is true it should be easy.

Refute something that isn't fact to begin with? Refute a theory that is merely opinion? Nothing to refute, when in reality there is nothing solid there to begin with.

I would ask what you're going on about, but I'm not really interested.

I understood exactly what he was talking about and I'm sure he'd be happy to explain, but that aside, mighty convenient approach you took to the comment...not to mention a little funny.

 

[SteveB28]

And your proves evolution?

It provides a much more sound explanation, yes.......

Or fact is, even scientists insist, their science proves nothing, so bottom line, we either allow anything science comes up with to convince us or we don't....I don't, you do.

No, in fact, you just showed us the procedure in science. People come up with alternative explanations and then they are tested against the evidence.

Those that fail that test, like your "same stuff" hypothesis, are rejected. Those that pass are tested again....and again....and again by others.

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection has been continuously tested against the evidence for the last 150 years.

It continues to pass each test with flying colours. You are correct; we don't use the word "prove" in science, because the door is always left open for further revision. But, if ever a scientific theory were to be declared "proven", it would be this one that comes closest.

 

[Armoured]

Refute something that isn't fact to begin with? Refute a theory that is merely opinion? Nothing to refute, when in reality there is nothing solid there to begin with.



I understood exactly what he was talking about and I'm sure he'd be happy to explain, but that aside, mighty convenient approach you took to the comment...not to mention a little funny.

Science never "proves" anything. This is true. But it is a mistake to think that scientific consensus held theories are "only" opinion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And your proves evolution?

Or fact is, even scientists insist, their science proves nothing, so bottom line, we either allow anything science comes up with to convince us or we don't....I don't, you do.

Just because science doesn't deal in certainties or "absolute proof" (as a matter of principle; intellectual honesty), is not a valid excuse to state that every scientific proposition has a 50-50 shot of being wrong, or that no scientific proposition needs to be taken seriously.

That is ridiculous. The fact of the matter is that evolution is an extremely solid and accurate model, which can't be shown to be wrong.

That's a pretty good basis to accept the model as being what it is: accurate, solid, well-evidenced and working.

We know more about the evolution of life then we do about atoms...

However on this lower back pain thing, If I didn't make myself clear already, I will no longer give it any serious consideration.

To devastating for your case?

Wild, out of the blue assumptions are rampant enough here but that?...just no

What, exactly, is the "assumption" in the lower back pain thing?

I'll plead no case against something I think is nonsense....

Why do you think it is nonsense?

spent too much time on it already.

I haven't seen you spend ANY time on it. Except for the few seconds it took you on several occasions to just discard it at face value by saying "ASSUMPTION!" or "NONSENSE!".

I haven't seen you address the evidence at all.
If you feel like you did address the evidence, please share the post number where you did. Perhaps I missed it, which is entirely possible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Refute something that isn't fact to begin with?

Huh? When you refute something, isn't then the thing that was just refuted "not a fact" by definition??

How do you refute something that is correct? :-S

Refute a theory that is merely opinion? Nothing to refute, when in reality there is nothing solid there to begin with.

We've been over this. I explained to you how none of it is opinion.
And even if it is, there are still a gazitrillion amount of testable predictions flowing from this "opinion". So if the "opinion" is wrong, it should be rather easy to show it wrong.

So please do.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'll get to your comments in time, I'm only making so much time for this so it doesn't keep me from more important things.

But for the moment, I'd like to point out how many times I've heard the evolutionists state Scientists are not biased...they have no agenda when I comment on the possibility of agenda leading them in a direction or directing them into finding what they do find. And no, I'm not going to search the board for proof that has been uttered, If you don't believe me, I don't care, you can stop reading here. If some of you are honest, you will admit it has been brought up.

Anyway FWIW, this was just posted and thought you might be interested, or maybe not.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/dont-like-the-implications.7973420/

 

[Kenny'sID]

We've been over this. I explained to you how none of it is opinion.
And even if it is, there are still a gazitrillion amount of testable predictions flowing from this "opinion". So if the "opinion" is wrong, it should be rather easy to show it wrong.

So please do.

And I've been over the fact I'd be interested in what a Judge has to say about it...does it prove evolution, or does it not? Does it in your view?

Also I've said it before and think it's a viable position, I'm not going to get a degree in this stuff just to argue something I think is bee ess to begin with. You'll have to wait for someone a little more learned on the subject to argue it in depth with you. Stick with things a bit more simple as we have been prior to this, and we'll be ok.

Or you can take a dim witted approach that if I can't argue it, you must be right, but you seem to have a little more sense than that. I could, I'm just not going to spend the time preparing and it would be unfair of me to try...waste of my time and yours to go any further with my limited knowledge on this particular area.

 

[Loudmouth]

And your proves evolution?

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

Perhaps you should read what the scientists actually write. We share over 200,000 ERVs with chimps at the same position in each of our genomes.

 

[Loudmouth]

Refute something that isn't fact to begin with? Refute a theory that is merely opinion?

How are scientific theories merely opinions?

 

[Loudmouth]

But for the moment, I'd like to point out how many times I've heard the evolutionists state Scientists are not biased...they have no agenda when I comment on the possibility of agenda leading them in a direction or directing them into finding what they do find. And no, I'm not going to search the board for proof that has been uttered, If you don't believe me, I don't care, you can stop reading here. If some of you are honest, you will admit it has been brought up.

Anyway FWIW, this was just posted and thought you might be interested, or maybe not.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/dont-like-the-implications.7973420/

The problem is that ID/creationists have failed to bring forth positive evidence in support of their theory. It would be biased to treat ID/creationism as being equal to the theory of evolution.

 

[mzungu]

Question to creationists:

What do we need to find in order to disprove TOE?

This is how science works.