Facts to disprove theory of evolution

[Astrid]

I thought it was apparent. My answer is - the fact that things have characteristics in common in no way necessitates that one of those things came from the other, nor that they are related other than the fact that they have something(s) in common.

As a very general statement that is so.

But again, not too helpful to a meaningful discussion.

Nor is it a fact such as could disprove evolution.

If you have somethung more specific than, say, that all
things painted red etc, please state it, if you think it
relates to topic of thread.

 

[Chesterton]

Reductio ad absurdum is not amusing or
helpful.

Did you just admit that the TOE is absurd? You think I reduced the story? I invite you to look at the below animation from the very prestigious Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. You don't have watch the whole thing, just look at about 1:18 where the land dwelling critter suddenly starts living underwater. As I said before, the story is a bit lacking in details.

Evolution of Whales Animation

Animated video showing the rapid evolution of whales, from walking Pakicetus 48 million years ago, to the swimming Llanocetus 34 million years ago.

naturalhistory.si.edu

 

[Chesterton]

Nor is it a fact such as could disprove evolution.

As someone else said, it might be impossible. We're talking about trying to prove or disprove very ancient pre-history.

If you have somethung more specific than, say, that all
things painted red etc, please state it, if you think it
relates to topic of thread.

As to your OP, if you want facts maybe look into the Wistar Conference of 1966 in Philadelphia. There was a book published which consists of the transcripts of the conference. I haven't read the book, but I've read about the contents. The mathematicians determined that the universe is simply not old enough, that there hasn't been enough time to create a single complex living cell, much less a horse or a human. The interesting thing is that the pro-evolutionists could not refute the mathematicians, so they resorted to simply saying "but we can't say this publicly!"

There's a saying something to the effect of "if an idea has to be protected from scrutiny, that's a red flag that the idea may be bad". And it's weird that scientists today can be ostracized and even lose their jobs if they question the TOE.

 

[sfs]

As to your OP, if you want facts maybe look into the Wistar Conference of 1966 in Philadelphia. There was a book published which consists of the transcripts of the conference. I haven't read the book, but I've read about the contents. The mathematicians determined that the universe is simply not old enough, that there hasn't been enough time to create a single complex living cell, much less a horse or a human. The interesting thing is that the pro-evolutionists could not refute the mathematicians, so they resorted to simply saying "but we can't say this publicly!"

Could you please give the names of some of the 'pro-evolutionists' who said this, along with citations to where they said it? Assuming this isn't just some rumor you heard somewhere that you're passing along because it makes your opponents look bad, that is.

More importantly, what were the actual objections raised at that conference? What were the responses of the biologists present? What you've presented here doesn't even begin to be a fact. From what I've read of that conference, some mathematical types (not all mathematicians, in fact) presented some bad arguments based on a poor understanding of evolution, and they were then corrected. So what were the arguments?

 

[Larniavc]

Oh, some biologist guy I met at the bus stop. I admit my version of the story is lacking in details, but that's because the actual story is lacking in details.

The thing is what you were told is not accurate.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Did you just admit that the TOE is absurd? You think I reduced the story? I invite you to look at the below animation from the very prestigious Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. You don't have watch the whole thing, just look at about 1:18 where the land dwelling critter suddenly starts living underwater. As I said before, the story is a bit lacking in details.

Evolution of Whales Animation

Animated video showing the rapid evolution of whales, from walking Pakicetus 48 million years ago, to the swimming Llanocetus 34 million years ago.

naturalhistory.si.edu

That video uses animated short clips of individual species in the evolutionary chain. The transitions between clips use a "morph" feature. The equivalent would be a slide show of presidential portraits with a morph between presidents. No one would think that Barak Obama transformed into Donald Trump. It's just an effect.

 

[BCP1928]

As someone else said, it might be impossible. We're talking about trying to prove or disprove very ancient pre-history.

As to your OP, if you want facts maybe look into the Wistar Conference of 1966 in Philadelphia. There was a book published which consists of the transcripts of the conference. I haven't read the book, but I've read about the contents. The mathematicians determined that the universe is simply not old enough, that there hasn't been enough time to create a single complex living cell, much less a horse or a human. The interesting thing is that the pro-evolutionists could not refute the mathematicians, so they resorted to simply saying "but we can't say this publicly!"

There's a saying something to the effect of "if an idea has to be protected from scrutiny, that's a red flag that the idea may be bad". And it's weird that scientists today can be ostracized and even lose their jobs if they question the TOE.

That would have to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Anecdotal evidence is never conclusive, but the anecdotes offered by creationists of scientists losing their jobs always seem to include some form of fundamentalist ranting as part of the cause..

On the other hand, here are some scientists challenging evolution who are not losing their jobs over it.

About the EES – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com

 

[Chesterton]

Could you please give the names of some of the 'pro-evolutionists' who said this, along with citations to where they said it? Assuming this isn't just some rumor you heard somewhere that you're passing along because it makes your opponents look bad, that is.

More importantly, what were the actual objections raised at that conference? What were the responses of the biologists present? What you've presented here doesn't even begin to be a fact. From what I've read of that conference, some mathematical types (not all mathematicians, in fact) presented some bad arguments based on a poor understanding of evolution, and they were then corrected. So what were the arguments?

No. As I said, I haven't read the book. I read about it many years ago. The OP asked for facts, and has asked for facts several more times in the thread, so after 8 pages of being snarky I thought I'd try and help her out, so I said "maybe" she could look into Wistar.

I do recall that some of the mathematicians were very top-notch from places like MIT so calling them "mathematical types" is a bit insulting. And yes there were also biologists and engineers.

 

[Chesterton]

The thing is what you were told is not accurate.

I agree.

 

[Chesterton]

That video uses animated short clips of individual species in the evolutionary chain. The transitions between clips use a "morph" feature. The equivalent would be a slide show of presidential portraits with a morph between presidents. No one would think that Barak Obama transformed into Donald Trump. It's just an effect.

I agree. No one in their right mind would believe Barak Obama could evolve into Donald Trump. Same with cows and whales.

 

[stevil]

Evolution is for those that dont believe in the power of God. We are made in His image. We didnt evolve from apes....

There are many people that believe in the Christian god, but also believe in evolution.
Just because you believe in a god, it doesn't mean you have to deny science.

 

[BCP1928]

I agree. No one in their right mind would believe Barak Obama could evolve into Donald Trump. Same with cows and whales.

But if it happened it would be a fact which disproved the theory of evolution.

 

[stevil]

Personally, my favorite story from evolutionary theory is the one where that cow who walked out of the sea one day decides to walk back into the sea and become a whale. What a brilliant, visionary move. When you compare how much beef McDonald's sells to how much whale blubber they sell...brilliant move. <slow clap>

I would expect that prior to becoming a whale, the mammal would have had a period of time where it simply spent lots of time in water, e,g the Hippo

 

[Chesterton]

That would have to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Anecdotal evidence is never conclusive, but the anecdotes offered by creationists of scientists losing their jobs always seem to include some form of fundamentalist ranting as part of the cause..

On the other hand, here are some scientists challenging evolution who are not losing their jobs over it.

About the EES – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com

Thanks for the link. That's interesting. But two things about "fundamentalist ranting" are, first, when I read the OP I thought about information I'd gotten from say, Stephen Meyer or the Discovery Institute or others in that camp, but if they were posted about it would be dismissed out of prejudice because "Oh they're theists" or "they might be theists". Second, AFAIK they don't have facts to disprove evolution for the same reason evolutionists don't have facts to prove evolution. Evolution concerns pre-history. All we have is reasoning from the evidence.

 

[Larniavc]

I agree.

Then why post what you knew was a false representation of ToE?

 

[Chesterton]

I would expect that prior to becoming a whale, the mammal would have had a period of time where it simply spent lots of time in water, e,g the Hippo

Yes, cows and hippos are both even-toed ungulates. But can you elaborate?

 

[BCP1928]

Thanks for the link. That's interesting. But two things about "fundamentalist ranting" are, first, when I read the OP I thought about information I'd gotten from say, Stephen Meyer or the Discovery Institute or others in that camp, but if they were posted about it would be dismissed out of prejudice because "Oh they're theists" or "they might be theists". Second, AFAIK they don't have facts to disprove evolution for the same reason evolutionists don't have facts to prove evolution. Evolution concerns pre-history. All we have is reasoning from the evidence.

No, they would not be dismissed "because they are theists." It is not necessary, anyway, because the ID of the Discovery Institute can easily be dismissed on scientific grounds.

 

[Chesterton]

Then why post what you knew was a false representation of ToE?

What I said was that the whale thing is my favorite TOE story. I also like Lord Of The Rings but I don't necessarily think it's a true representation of historical facts.

 

[friend of]

Okay so if I as a human being wanted to develop gills so I could respirate underwater like a common fish, how would I go about it? Would I attempt to drown myself every day and force my descendants to do so for hundreds of thousands of years in order for evolution to "click" and say "I should give that man gills"

Somebody explain?

 

[BCP1928]

Okay so if I as a human being wanted to develop gills so I could respirate underwater like a common fish, how would I go about it? Would I attempt to drown myself every day and force my descendants to do so for hundreds of thousands of years in order for evolution to "click" and say "I should give that man gills"

Somebody explain?

That scenario is nothing like what would have to happen for humans to develop gills. To start with, even if humans were exposed to conditions in which they gradually developed the ability to breath under water, there is no necessity that the adaptation would even resemble the gills of a fish.