Embarrassing Evolution proofs

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

take a motion system for instance. any motion system need at least several parts to work. so such a system cant evolve stepwise. right?

Wrong.

 

[majj27]

Wrong.

You and I need to coordinate our answers better here.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You and I need to coordinate our answers better here.

The more the merrier, I say

 

[Speedwell]

ok. but its not small steps. you cant just add one part and get it work as a plane engine.

Yes you can. Back in the early days of flight there were kits and plans for light planes which people built themselves. In the example linked, the powerplant was a Model A Ford engine, a readily available engine from a cheap and popular car. It bolted right in.

Pietenpol Air Camper - Wikipedia

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, assuming that they are next to each other because they died in a geologically very short period of time to one another. Just dropping a trilobite fossil and a mammal fossil next to each other during an earthquake is another thing entirely.

Obviously.

 

[majj27]

Obviously.

I just figured it was worth a mention because you just know someone is going to take a trilobite fossil and a squirrel skull, toss them in a hole and yell "Take that, scientificists!"

 

[xianghua]

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.

can you give me one empirical evidence for evolution?

 

[xianghua]

However, an important part of the scientific method is replication - if other examples of this apparently out-of-time creature were found in strata with the same dating at other sites, it would be a serious challenge to evolution.

why?. if for instance we will find many human fossils from the dinos ages we can claim that human-like creature evolved twice, or just evolved earlier then we think.

 

[Speedwell]

why?. if for instance we will find many human fossils from the dinos ages we can claim that human-like creature evolved twice, or just evolved earlier then we think.

Which would be a serious challenge to the theory of evolution, just like he said. A new theory might even be required.

 

[xianghua]

Yes it does, because you aren't actually responding to what the DogmaHunter said: you're substituting your own, completely different issue.

Which is, as I said:

Look, if you want a discussion where we just respond to things that nobody has said and answer questions we make up in our heads randomly, that's fine. It'll just be very hard to follow and will mostly be useful for giggles.

fine. lets check dogma claim about ervs. do you agree with him about his prediction?

 

[xianghua]

Wow. Way wrong. That's an irreducible complexity argument that has been THOROUGHLY junked.

If you're going to crusade against evolution, it may help to know what evolution actually is, as opposed to what a creationist tells you it is.

prove it. prove that a motion system can be made by a single part (to move hand for instance).

 

[Speedwell]

prove it. prove that a motion system can be made by a single part (to move hand for instance).

Why should we defend your straw man?

 

[xianghua]

Convergent evolution produces broadly similar traits in broadly similar niches (e.g. bird wings, bat wings), but the detailed anatomy is very different, not to mention the genetics because the lineages are different.

actually its already happen:

How Evolution Gave Some Fish Their Electric Powers

"After they’d isolated the genes in electric eels, the researchers looked at the RNA—the acid that encodes genes from DNA—of two other lineages of electric fishes. They found that the same genes were similarly manipulated, all with the same effect: Tweaking the muscle cell genetic code as a blueprint for a little organic battery."

so evolution is false now? i dont think so.

 

[xianghua]

I want to say "yes", but I suspect you are going to link to several studies that employ different ways of measuring it and then completely misrepresent them and try to score intellectually dishonest points in that fashion.

what are you afraid of? you made a prediction so lets check this prediction. unless you think that we can falsify evolution by your own prediction?

 

[xianghua]

The Wright Brothers did. Several times in fact.

but not by adding a single part. right?

 

[majj27]

prove it. prove that a motion system can be made by a single part (to move hand for instance).

A hand is not a single part. That's a horrible example.

Now a bacterial flagellum? That's relatively simple, comparatively. And we've found that the elements that make up the flagellum are (Surprise!) specializations of earlier, simpler structures. Not only that, but the flagellum itself isn't irreducible. So there goes that argument.

Also, cilia and flagella are both used for the same purpose but have completely different structural elements. This makes perfect sense for structures that evolved independently.

So now YOU get to prove that cilia and flagella did NOT evolve from similar structures over time. Enjoy!

 

[majj27]

fine. lets check dogma claim about ervs. do you agree with him about his prediction?

I think it's a rational claim. I certainly don't know of any non-primates that have share more ERVs with humans than primates do. Do you?

 

[majj27]

but not by adding a single part. right?

Yep, they didn't have to magically BAMF it from a car engine to a plane engine because at that point, there was NO SUCH THING AS A DISCRETE PLANE ENGINE.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

why?. if for instance we will find many human fossils from the dinos ages we can claim that human-like creature evolved twice, or just evolved earlier then we think.

No, unless it was a human-like dinosaur.

 

[majj27]

No, unless it was a human-like dinosaur.

Oh great, now we've got Sleestaks.