Embarrassing Evolution proofs

[DogmaHunter]

since evolution isnt a scientific theory (because we cant test it)

Evolution theory is extremely testable.
Actual evolution theory, that is...

Which is not what you are refering to, when you use that word. You just argue a strawman, as so many people have been telling you in all your threads about imaginary creatures.

 

[DogmaHunter]

but you said that : "There are MANY ways evolution could be disproven."-

so give me such a test

Find me a non-primate that shares more ERV's with humans then primates.

in the fossil area.

Find me a mammal next to trilobites.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so how we get the ability to speak? by how many mutations? if we assume about 100 new mutations to evolve a complex language from a simple one what make you think that every step was so beneficial that it get fixed in the entire population?

Language complexity is not genetically determined.

also consider this: we never seen an ape turn into human even in small steps

We've also never seen Pluto complete an orbit, since we haven't known about its existance long enough.

Yet we know that it takes 248 years

No, we've not seen a several million year process happen in front of our eyes.
This surprises you?

(not at once because even evolutionists dont believe in such event)

Indeed, I do not believe that we can witness a several million year process in a single human life-time.

Again, this surprises you?

so what make you think its possible at all?

The actual evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

if so we cant test it

False.

and therefore its not scientific

False

. just like any belief that cant be test.

False.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

False.



False



False.

This is just starting to get painful now, isn't it?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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?

It has just been explained to you by several people why this won't happen. Why are you ignoring those responses?

if we will have a self replicating car

No such cars exist.

. do you think it will change into a truck?

Sure, imaginary cars can change into imaginary cars.
In people's imagination, nothing is impossible.

But let's stick to the real world....

think about transformers. they can change into another structure.

They are also fictional.

but we both agree that such a system require a sophisticated intelligence:

Yes. Primarily computers and 3d designers who then give rise to these imaginary sentient robots to be used in movies.

ps: when Megan Fox stands before Bumblebee in the movie, she isn't actually standing before Bumblebee.... instead, she's standing in front of a green screen and Bumblebee is then animated into the movie. Because transformers don't actually exist. They are virtual 3d models on a computer, animated into a movie.

You realise this, right?
Because it sounds like you don't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

You can test it. All it takes is some comparative studies concerning the genomes of humans, chimps, gorilla's, oerang oetangs and a couple of other creatures of your choosing.

The prediction is that it will fall into a nested hierarchy where the apes (incl humans) will all be on the same branch, while the other random creatures of your choosing will find themselves on other branches.

Go ahead, try it.
Find me a non-primate that shares more ERV's with humans then primates.

Go do it. Get yourself a nobel prize.

this is my point.

Your point is invalid and rooted in ignorance.

 

[Strathos]

Funny tangent - in the Transformers comic books there was actually an argument between the ones who believed that they were created by their god Primus, and others who believed that their forebears appeared naturally via "atechnogenesis".

Atechnogenesis - Transformers Wiki

 

[xianghua]

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.

but there is at least one problem: there are no small steps from a car into an airplane. for instance: a plane engine is very different from a car engine. so you cant just add 1-2 new parts and make it work as a plane engine.

 

[xianghua]

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

as i said: you can explain anything by many excuses. in such a way no fossil will falsify evolution.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

as i said: you can explain anything by many excuses. in such a way no fossil will falsify evolution.

Don't give up, keep looking.

If evolution is false, there ought to be at least as many glaring exceptions as there are consistencies, so they shouldn't be hard to find.

On the other hand, it would seem to be an astronomically remote set of coincidences that would put us in the situation of today, where millions of items of evidence from multiple independent fields of science are consistent with evolution and its predictions, and the few anomalous examples all appear to have plausible explanations...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

but there is at least one problem: there are no small steps from a car into an airplane. for instance: a plane engine is very different from a car engine. so you cant just add 1-2 new parts and make it work as a plane engine.

That's a problem for your 'argument'; you can't predict specific results of evolutionary processes, only that each stage has a selective advantage over the previous stage in the environment of its time.

But the main problem for your 'argument' is that cars do not constitute breeding populations...

 

[xianghua]

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.

in this case we know that the chance for a drunken driver is very high. but how do you know that the chance for evolution to happen is high too?

 

[DogmaHunter]

in this case we know that the chance for a drunken driver is very high. but how do you know that the chance for evolution to happen is high too?

Because we observe every single part of the process happening.
- reproduction: check
- with modification/mutation: check
- with inheritability of traits: check
- natural selection: check
- speciation: check

And, off course, that every testable prediction of this process also checks out.
Evolution of living things, is inevitable. Either that, or extinction.

 

[majj27]

but there is at least one problem: there are no small steps from a car into an airplane. for instance: a plane engine is very different from a car engine. so you cant just add 1-2 new parts and make it work as a plane engine.

Sure there is. You know why? Because just like your example, I made it all up in my head.

 

[Speedwell]

but there is at least one problem: there are no small steps from a car into an airplane. for instance: a plane engine is very different from a car engine. so you cant just add 1-2 new parts and make it work as a plane engine.

Why not? The biggest difference is that aircraft engines are air cooled and automobile engines are water cooled, but there are some automobile engines which are air cooled. Right after WWII an engineer named Preston Tucker was trying to get a car into production. Because of delays in manufacturing engines he actually used war-surplus air cooled aircraft engines in the cars. Made about fifty cars that way and they worked fine.

 

[majj27]

Why not? The biggest difference is that aircraft engines are air cooled and automobile engines are water cooled, but their are some automobile engines which are air cooled. Right after WWII an engineer named Preston Tucker was trying to get a car into production. Because of delays in manufacturing engines he actually used war-surplus air cooled aircraft engines in the cars. Made about fifty cars that way and they worked fine.

The first airplane engines were basically 4-stroke, four cylinder engines that could be produced at any automobile production plant (requirements were 8-10 HP, 200 lbs or less in weight). The only reason they were hand made was that no car plant would reset an entire line for a production run of one. Also, they started as water cooled as well, but turned to air cooled when it was found those worked better.

So yes, the engines are not a real sticking point in Magical Baby-Making Car Land.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why not? The biggest difference is that aircraft engines are air cooled and automobile engines are water cooled, but there are some automobile engines which are air cooled. Right after WWII an engineer named Preston Tucker was trying to get a car into production. Because of delays in manufacturing engines he actually used war-surplus air cooled aircraft engines in the cars. Made about fifty cars that way and they worked fine.

There are plenty of air-cooled engine cars still around.

 

[Ophiolite]

in this case we know that the chance for a drunken driver is very high. but how do you know that the chance for evolution to happen is high too?

Evidence. So much evidence you could not possibly work your way through it all in a single lifetime. I understand some people have an occular defect that prevents them from seeing the evidence. That is sad, but it doesn't change the high quality and large quantity of the evidence.

 

[Speedwell]

There are plenty of air-cooled engine cars still around.

Still would rather have a Tucker Torpedo.