proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Jimmy D]

When you use "must have happened," "If they occurred," "This is almost certainly" and other such phrase of doubt, it makes what you offer as proof doubtful.

To claim all life, animal, fish, birds, and humans and plants originated from one source, and you have no idea what that source was, is not only absurd, it can't be proved and the laws of genetics say it is impossible.

So tell me how a life or with no bones, not gene for bones and no need for bones produce a kid with bones.

Please include how the first life form originated from lifeless elements.

Also tell me what the first lie form evolved into and the science that cause it to evolve.

LOL, it's not "doubt" it's called honesty, still your semantic diversions aside, you have not addressed the evidence presented.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Finding fossil is not evidence of evolution.

It isn't? Where did you learn that? Trump University?

Is there anything that could possibly convince you of evolution, other than a 50 word quote saying that evolution happened?

 

[bhsmte]

Mmm, I'm sure I posted ERV evidence (not links) that contradicts everything you've said here. Why are you still ignoring it?

What choice does he have? Admitting he is wrong, is not an option.

 

[omega2xx]

@omega2xx

can you please go back to your reply to me in post 5687 and fix the quoting?
you likely have a typo in one of the closing tags.

Thanks

I tried but I am not computer literate enough to fix it. If you will repost your post, I will try to respond using the correct format.

 

[omega2xx]

Evidence for what, evolution?

Yes. Pick any doctrine of Darwin and present the scientific evidence that makes it true.

I have ask several to provide the evidence for natural selection. I am sure with your great knowledge of science that should be a piece of cake for you.

 

[omega2xx]

Otters don't need to go far inland. When they go onshore, they can stay close enough to water to quickly jump in the water if danger approaches from land.


They may not be the best design for land, or the optimal design for water, but if they can quickly go back and forth between land and water as the need presents itself, they can be a quite successful creature.

Even if what you say is true and there is a lot of doubts in it, Surviving is not a mechanism for a change of species.

And the ancestor of the whale could have been similar to an otter.[/QUOTE]

 

[omega2xx]

LOL, it's not "doubt" it's called honesty, still your semantic diversions aside, you have not addressed the evidence presented.

Yes doubt is honesty but in says something has not been proved.

Rhetoric is not evidence.

 

[doubtingmerle]

When species live and if they live at the same time is irrelevant.

Why not? We have shown you how Eohippus evolved into the horse and zebra over millions of years. We have done that by pointing out a whole series of intermediates lined up by the date of the fossils. Why isn't that relevant?

The question is how did an A become a B, then a C, then a D, etc.

Mutations and natural selection.

Talk mentioning several species is not evidence.

Why not. That is the very point, that the Eohippus evolved into the horse through a long series of different species. How can we show to you that the horse descended through a long series of species, if you will not allow us to mention different species?

What is it about "the fossil record is woefully inadequate" you don't understand?

The fossil record is inadequate for showing each and every species and each and every change in a species. That is because few animals become fossils. But on a broad scale, the pattern of evolution is clear from the fossils. For instance:

 

[omega2xx]

Hmm. These sea otter sure look like they are holding hands (I mean flippers) to me. I guess I better call the optician.

Paws are not hands. They are not holding hands, they are touching paws. Hands can grasp, paws can't

 

[doubtingmerle]

Even if what you say is true and there is a lot of doubts in it, Surviving is not a mechanism for a change of species.

Were your evolution classes limited to just survival?

That's odd. I learned about survival and mutations.

 

[omega2xx]

Why not? We have shown you how Eohippus evolved into the horse and zebra over millions of years. We have done that by pointing out a whole series of intermediates lined up by the date of the fossils. Why isn't that relevant?

Mutations and natural selection.

Mutation do not change the species, they only alter a characteristic the offspring would have gotten if the mutation had not occurred. You have no evidence to support natural selection can be a mechanism for change of species. Prove me wrong.

Why not. That is the very point, that the Eohippus evolved into the horse through a long series of different species. How can we show to you that the horse descended through a long series of species, if you will not allow us to mention different species?



The fossil record is inadequate for showing each and every species and each and every change in a species. That is because few animals become fossils. But on a broad scale, the pattern of evolution is clear from the fossils. For instance:

[/QUOTE]

 

[doubtingmerle]

Paws are not hands. They are not holding hands, they are touching paws. Hands can grasp, paws can't

"Holding hands" is an expression. The otter does not have literal hands, but it was still shown "holding hands" in that picture.

The otter has legs that evolved to be good at either land or sea transportation.

 

[omega2xx]

"Holding hands" is an expression. The otter does not have literal hands, but it was still shown "holding hands" in that picture.

Your comment of them holding hands was not an expression. It was meant to show otters had hands.

The otter has legs that evolved to be good at either land or sea transportation.

Otter legs are useful, good is doubtful. They can't outrun the wolf and by instinct know to stay near their natural habitat. Otters do not venture far onto land.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You have no evidence to support natural selection can be a mechanism for change of species. Prove me wrong.

Dude, you need to work on your quote tags. Your stuff is coming through with weird formatting.

To you question, the answer is simple. Take a ring species. The members at each end are incompatible with each other. Should the middle of the ring die out, then you would be left with two different species. That is exactly what evolution predicts, that a species would diversify, and if one end of the diversification got isolated, it becomes a new species.

How do you think a ring species came into existence? Do you agree that all the members of a ring species descended from common ancestors?

 

[omega2xx]

you can not.

Evo rhetoric is not evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

Evo rhetoric is not evidence.

And, hand waving doesnt make the evidence go away. I do understand, these type of crude defense mechanisms, do offer temporary comfort.

 

[omega2xx]

"He also said this:

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)"

OOOH, "quotes", how convincing, they surely beat evidence!

You do realize that you have been duped into lying and misrepresenting people's views by your dishonest sources. It speaks volumes that you're comfortable with that.

Do you see those four full stops in your Gould quote, do you know what that means? Does it not strike you as strange that a bit has been snipped out?

What it tells me is that you merely copied it from some Creationist propagada site without bothering to check anything, just swallowing what they tell you with out question.

What you tell me is that you can only whine about something you don't understand and can't produce any evidence for what evo fundies have believed by faith alone.

Well, newsflash, repeating their lies makes you a liar. How does the religion you're trying so desperately to defend feel about that?

News flash, unless you can proved what they say is wrong and what you accept by faith alone is true, guess who is lying.

 

[pitabread]

I am only interest in the evidence that makes your prediction true.

I predict that no matter what you are presented, you will find a way to dismiss, hand-wave or otherwise ignore it.

Which is precisely why I originally said it's a waste of time trying to present you with anything.

 

[bhsmte]

I predict that no matter what you are presented, you will find a way to dismiss, hand-wave or otherwise ignore it.

Which is precisely why I originally said it's a waste of time trying to present you with anything.

Yep, pigeon chess gets old pretty quickly.

 

[omega2xx]

Dude, you need to work on your quote tags. Your stuff is coming through with weird formatting.

Sorry about using the wrong format. I forget sometime and use the format in another forun I have been in for 20 years.

To you question, the answer is simple. Take a ring species. The members at each end are incompatible with each other. Should the middle of the ring die out, then you would be left with two different species. That is exactly what evolution predicts, that a species would diversify, and if one end of the diversification got isolated, it becomes a new species.

They are only incompatible for one reason--some of them can no longer mate and produce kids. Becoming sterile does not make a new species. I also understand that all of them did not become sterile.

How do you think a ring species came into existence?

By definition to help support the ToE. Even if you want to call them a sub-species, which some do call them, that is no different than calling the offspring of a bull dog and a collie, a subspecies of the specie dog.

Do you agree that all the members of a ring species descended from common ancestors?

All life forms, animals and plants descend from the species they are. Dogs descend from dogs and corn descends from corn. Corn always produces the same variety of corn. If dogs are the same breed, they will have a kid exactly the same species as they are. If the breeds are different, they will have a different variety of dog because bull dogs and collies are both dogs.