Embarrassing Evolution proofs

[xianghua]

Such as:

• If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
• If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
• If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
• If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
• If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
• If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.

That would do it nicely.

ok. lets choose one: "If it could be shown that mutations do not occur."-

why such a thing should falsify evolution? we can claim that mutations may happen in the past so creatures dont need them anymore, or we can claim that maybe there is other unknown mechanism that can change species over time. at darwin time they were not aware about DNA and mutations and they still believe that creatures can change somehow.

 

[Speedwell]

or we can claim that maybe there is other unknown mechanism that can change species over time.

And that would not be the theory of evolution any more.

But I forgot; you are arguing both against the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution itself, right?

The items on that list would falsify the theory of evolution as it presently is, but not the fact that some kind of evolution has taken place.

 

[xianghua]

Language is a learnt behaviour, the ability to speak could be facilitated by mutations like I mentioned, but it's not like there is going to be a specific gene for language, that is any different from the ape, again other animals speak, some have volcabularies fairly high like ravens, dogs, and such. Dogs understand many wrods they just lack the right vocal cords to speak. Apes are the same way most of the barrier to language is the ability to form words, and the understanding level to use them, both. Again there isn't that many changes from humans to ape,.

i think we need at least 10-20 new mutations for such a change but lets say that you are correct. again: what make you think that an ape will evolve into human? if we will have a self replicating car. do you think it will change into a truck? think about transformers. they can change into another structure. but we both agree that such a system require a sophisticated intelligence:

(image from Bumblebee Camaro - Transformers)

 

[majj27]

if we will have a self replicating car. do you think it will change into a truck?

If we have a self replicating car? You DO realize that cars are not self-replicating, right? If a car was a self-replicating, living being it wouldn't BE a car.

 

[Speedwell]

i think we need at least 10-20 new mutations for such a change but lets say that you are correct. again: what make you think that an ape will evolve into human? if we will have a self replicating car. do you think it will change into a truck? think about transformers. they can change into another structure. but we both agree that such a system require a sophisticated intelligence:

(image from Bumblebee Camaro - Transformers)

Changing from a car to a "transformer" creature is not evolution. It has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[xianghua]

3. Given that it took millions of years for the evolution of humans from our last common ancestor with the other apes, why would you expect that we would be able to observe this happening over the course of human history?

correct. as i said: its just a belief and not something that we can test or prove. this is my point.

second: are you saying that if we will have about say 10 my we will see such evolution for sure, or even in such a case its not sure that we will see that happen?

 

[xianghua]

If we have a self replicating car? You DO realize that cars are not self-replicating, right? If a car was a self-replicating, living being it wouldn't BE a car.

so call it animal if you want. do you think that a car-like animal can evolve into a flying-car animal?

 

[majj27]

so call it animal if you want. do you think that a car-like animal can evolve into a flying-car animal?

IF it is a biological animal and...
IF it is subject to the same mutational and phylogenic processes that other life is and...
IF it passes those traits on to it's descendants and...
IF there is an adaptational advantage to flying and...
IF enough time passes to enable those environmental pressures to naturally select for that sort of mutational path to occur...

Then yes, it's possible.

On the other hand, cars do not reproduce, so the question is moot.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

such as? here is a fail prediction for instance:

Tikiguania and the antiquity of squamate reptiles (lizards and snakes)


"Any acrodontan—let alone an advanced agamid—in the Triassic is thus highly unexpected in the light of recent studies."

"Tikiguania would have been evidence for an anomalously early (i.e. Triassic) age for what molecular studies suggest is a highly derived squamate clade (Acrodonta), implying that all major clades of squamates such as iguanians, anguimorphs, snakes, scincomorphs and gekkotans had diverged in the Triassic. However, none of these groups appear unequivocally in the fossil record until substantially later [5]. Indeed, some recent palaeontological and molecular studies of squamate divergence dates have not mentioned Tikiguania, presumably because of its problematic nature"

according to this logic even human with a dino fossil will not falsify evolution.

This is a fossil that appears to be out of place, and there appears to be a plausible explanation for this:

"Tikiguania came from a depth of 1.5 m within the Tiki Formation mudstone layers. As the specimen was screen washed from a load of five tonnes of excavated material, more precise depositional relationships are unknown.
...
Erosion or fissuring into the Tiki Formation at any time during the Neogene or Quaternary would have allowed more recent faunal remains to have been incorporated into the Triassic mudstones, long enough to develop the characteristic chemical patina. The Tiki Formation is widely exposed at or near the surface across more than 70 000 km2near Tiki and Beohari (fig. 1 in [24]), suggesting a long period dating back to the Late Tertiary at least where its sediments would have been sufficiently superficial to capture more recent animal remains. Consistent with this, Tikiguania shows very little damage to fragile bone margins or tooth crowns, and is extremely similar to living draconine agamids that have occupied this region during the Tertiary and still do today."​

So, no; that's insufficient.

 

[Ophiolite]

correct. as i said: its just a belief and not something that we can test or prove. this is my point.

Oh dear!

The conclusion that evolution has occurred is based upon anatomy, palaeontology, embryology, genetics, molecular biology, etc.

If I hear a large, complex noise outside my house, and then find that a car with a drunken driver is embedded in the ruins of my car, I conclude that the drunk had lost control of his car and driven into mine. I do not propose that some enigmatic unseen being has caused the two cars to occupy the same space simply because I did not see the crash take place.

 

[looking_for_answers_]

That's not what I was responding to. Go back and look at what I responding to.

Ah... whoops, read the context wrong. Carry on...

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Java Man 1891: $cientist admitted later they took the skull bone of a gibbon and the leg bone of a human to "recreate" and "prove$$$" evolution (Java Man - Wikipedia)

In fact the "Java man" was not a hoax at all. It was an example of Homo erectus. It is dishonest to claim otherwise, and dishonest to post the Wikipedia link in a way that actually exposed your misrepresentation.

Piltdown Man 1912: After fooling many "unable to critical think, can only parrot, peer review process participant" scientists for more than 40 years and "establishing" evolution theory, it was found to be a hoax. Someone had painted some bone fragments and filed down ape teeth to make it look more human. Yes, a couple of bone fragments was used to "reconstruct" the entire image ( Piltdown Man - Wikipedia)

The Piltdown hoax was exposed by evolutionary scientists. In fact, it was the first ever application of radiometric dating. It actually slowed the science of human evolution.

Nebreaska Ape Man 1922: Someone found a tooth in the ground and created a fantastic mi$$ing link. After fooling "unable to critical think, can only parrot" scientists and "establishing" evolution theory, it was later found out to be a tooth from a pig (Nebraska Man - Wikipedia)

The "someone" was amateur paleontologist Harold Cook. He sent the tooth fragment to professional paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn. Except Osborn had no experience with mammals. None-the-less, Osborn named it a new species, " Hesperopithecus haroldcookii"

That meant, "Western ape discovered by Harold Cook."

Not a new human.

See; The role of Nebraska man in the creation-evolution debate

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Dino Bird 1999: A chinese farmer was able to fool many "unable to critical think, can only parrot" scientists and "establish" evolution theory (Dino Hoax Was Mainly Made of Ancient Bird, Study Says)

The dealers selling the illegally collected, and illegally exported fossil tried to get any real scientists to authinticate the slabs. They could not find any. Instead they conned the Art Director at the National Geographic magazine to publish without any scientific support. Liars, then and liars now again promote this fraud as a slur on science. In reality, the mixed fossils were of two different, and totally new fossils species that real scientists were happy to learn about.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

How many more "couple of bones in the dirt" will $$$cientists find to create fantastic CGI creatures to advance $$evolution$$$ theory? It only takes 1 bone to create an entire creature.....where is the peer review process?!?!??!?!?

I have had enough creationist lies about science. What about the Bible?

Psalm 19:1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2 Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge.
The Bible teaches that the physical universe, and the biological universe is a Testament.

Psalm 85:11 reads, “Truth springs from the earth; and righteousness looks down from heaven.” The Hebrew word translated here as “truth” is emet It basically means “certainty and dependability.”

The Bible clearly states that the geological facts are "emet."

Addressing his three friends on the glory of God, Job challenges them: “Ask the animals, they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea inform you.” — Job 12:7 - 8.

Deniers are condemned in the Bible;

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." - Thomas Aquinas, c.a. 1225 - 1274, Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q68. Art 1. (1273).

Saint Thomas refers to;
Luke 17
1. He said to His disciples, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! 2. "It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble. 3. "Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.

And,

Matthew 18:
7. "Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!”

Also consider;
As the Apostle Paul wrote, "determine this--not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way" (Romans 14:13).

But they all call back to;
Lev 19:14 Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the Lord.

If creationists really believed the Bible they would follow;
James 1
13. Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.

and,
James 3
1. Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.

The physical reflects the Divine. Young Earth Creationists
should read the Bible.

 

[loveofourlord]

The dealers selling the illegally collected, and illegally exported fossil tried to get any real scientists to authinticate the slabs. They could not find any. Instead they conned the Art Director at the National Geographic magazine to publish without any scientific support. Liars, then and liars now again promote this fraud as a slur on science. In reality, the mixed fossils were of two different, and totally new fossils species that real scientists were happy to learn about.

yeah I've heard that the microraptor itself was a really great specimen and would have been pretty good on it's own.

 

[Haipule]

Amazing. Just about every part of this post is wrong.

1) Evolution IS a scientific theory.
2) There are MANY ways evolution could be disproven. Hasn't been done yet.
3) It's part of science, because it's a scientific theory.
4) Creationists are not rejecting a non-scientific theory. They are rejecting a scientific theory.

I do not ascribe to the scientific theory of "evolution" nor the churches idea of "creationism". Nor am I a allegorical Theo-evolutionist.

I accept what the bible says about how God MADE everything because there is no word in Hebrew or Greek that should ever have been translated as "create", Creator", "creation". All such words are transliterated from the Latin creatura or, creatus(or a really bad translation of the Greek ktisis--to found/establish). The biblical Hebrew and Greek words all have to do with making, forming, building, carving, etc and not "create".

Also, the Latin idea of ex nilio(from nothing) is a theological imported idea and has no bases in the autographed languages of the bible.

Now, this understanding does NOT give me the ability to tell you how God did it at this time. I merely accept what it actually says.

I mean; we modern folks did not know that rib bones are loaded with pluripotent DNA, and can grow back, until recently.

I trust that God is NOT supernatural but is rather, preternatural which means that God is natural, and all His makings, just really hard to explain. I do not believe that God "made" anything beyond the nature He Himself established.

I mean; we do not know how to turn water into wine NATURALLY, or the Nile River into blood(yet) but, He does--naturally!

So why does the church try to establish things they cannot possibly understand? And then confuse the snot out of everybody?

So the church attempts to establish "creationism" , which is stupid! And our counteroffer from the Atheist is evolution, which is stupid.

God knows what He is talking about even if we do not(yet)!

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's funny how the "scientists" now give a mocking nod to Adam and Eve of the bible because of mitochondrial DNA.

Before DNA, Adam and Eve was completely absurd to them!

After discovery of DNA, it is still absurd. If anything changed in that department as a result of discovering DNA, it will be that the adam and eve myth became even more absurd.

 

[DogmaHunter]

the problem is that those peer review papers fully support id and not evolution.

So, are you done pointing to imaginary car-animals?
You have moved on to pointing to imaginary papers now?

 

[Jimmy D]

so call it animal if you want. do you think that a car-like animal can evolve into a flying-car animal?

You're really becoming a parody of yourself now. Ignoring anything that people say to you, dismissing any scientific evidence and, worst of all, coming up with these ridiculous, convoluted analogies as if they have any value whatsoever.

Back on ignore you go.

 

[DogmaHunter]

i dont think so.

What you think is not important, as you have demonstrated time and again that you have no clue what you are talking about concerning this subject.

apes dont have language for instance. so how many mutations we need to this change?

See? When you say stuff like this, you only show your ignorance on the topic.