Evolution is a lie

[JoeyArnold]

I am not kidding.

 

[Incariol]

I am not kidding.

Um. So when you say this:

You should explain evolution to me. Nemo the Fish doesn't have legs. He gives birth to a child who doesn't have legs. The DNA dictates the traits of the off-springs. Is the DNA going to adapt & add a chromosome for legs?

You are being serious?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I am not kidding.

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JoeyArnold]

Fish adapted to the land.

 

[Incariol]

Fish adapted to the land.

Mystical Theology is accredited to St. Dionysius the Areopagite.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Mystical Theology is accredited to St. Dionysius the Areopagite.

Didn't life first begin in the ocean?

 

[Incariol]

Didn't life first begin in the ocean?

Didn't Nyx hatch from a primordial egg?

 

[USincognito]

Too funny Grizzly. I reject macro-evolution because it is BAD science. The scientific method back in my day required that a theory could be tested under uniform conditions and that there would be a consistant, DEMONSTRABLE result (like the boiling temperature of water at sea level).

If one tries to limit science to making papier mache volcanos, then one is not familiar with the reality of science. We don't need to build an entire "Earth II" in a lab to study geology. What matters are the observations in the field if those observations are consistent with the hypothesis being put foreward. We don't need to build an entire "Sun II" in a lab to study astrophysics. What matters are the observations from telescopes and satellites.

Macro-evolution has never been observed (the explanation is that it is micro-evolution over a longer period of time)

It has and you're correct, it is.

and the physical evidence doesn't indicate that species evolve gradually over time into different species but that a species type comes into existence not gradually but suddenly (as in the Cambrian age)

No, that's not at all what the evidence says. For some beings there are long periods of stasis. For some beings there is long periods of gradual evolution. For some beings there are long periods stasis or gradual evolution punctuated by periods of explosive evolution. And you consider millions to 10 of millions of years to be "sudden"?

...with the traits of the species already evident.

Congratulations. You got something right. Descendant species retain all the traits that their ancestral species have that make them members of a particular taxon. All mammals and birds are have all the traits of amniotes. All mammals, birds and fish have all the traits of vertebrates. All mammals, birds, fish and insects have all the traits of animals. Etc.

Another aspect of the scientific theory in my day is that facts would be examined and the theory would be altered to match the facts, NOT that evidence would be cherry picked and evidence that doesn't support the theory would be ignored and only the evidence that supports the theory would be considered.

Given the Creationist modus operandi, you just blew out irony meters all over the Web.

 

[USincognito]

They cannot DEMONSTRATE that macro-evolution occurs and the fossil record far more strongly indicates that species arise not gradually (ie one species evolving into intermediate forms and finally into a new species) but quickly with the unique traits of the species in place.

I don't know who told you that, but there's plenty of transitional fossils and we don't even have to rely on the fossils for common ancestry. All the genetic and molecular evidences point to common ancestry and the phylogenetic relationships built with just DNA match those built with morphological evidences.

And if by "unique traits" you're referring to something that uses a characteristic that places it into a higher taxa (say a forelimb) and that forelimb is adapted to become a bird wing or whale flipper, that "unique trait" is, because of that fact, more evidence for common ancestry. There are very few "unique traits" to be found in beings below the phylum taxonomic level.

 

[Incariol]

Could someone just tell Bondiharry that "macroevolution" has been observed in a laboratory, repeatedly, and it isn't anyone's fault but his own that he hasn't bothered noticing?

 

[JoeyArnold]

Life didn't begin in the ocean.

Where did life begin?

 

[JoeyArnold]

Could someone just tell Bondiharry that "macroevolution" has been observed in a laboratory, repeatedly, and it isn't anyone's fault but his own that he hasn't bothered noticing?

You mean a telescope?

 

[AV1611VET]

Could someone just tell Bondiharry that "macroevolution" has been observed in a laboratory, repeatedly, and it isn't anyone's fault but his own that he hasn't bothered noticing?

I don't care if we see Magilla Gorilla give birth to the next world Chess champion; you can't retcon that back to -- and supplant -- Genesis 1 with it.

 

[Incariol]

You mean a telescope?

Have you been drinking? It really is the only way your posts make sense.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where did life begin?

Life is self-existent, as God is life.

Next in line come the angels, who were present at the creation of the earth -- they too didn't evolve.

Next come plant life, then animals -- including whales -- then, last of all, mankind.

None of which came by way of evolution.

 

[Incariol]

I don't care if we see Magilla Gorilla give birth to the next world Chess champion; you can't retcon that back to -- and supplant -- Genesis 1 with it.

AV, in case you haven't realized it over time, nobody here really cares about your opinions on the Bible as they relate to science, because they are just one fringe absurdity after another.

 

[AV1611VET]

Have you been drinking? It really is the only way your posts make sense.

What genus would you place the angels in?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I don't care if we see Magilla Gorilla give birth to the next world Chess champion; you can't retcon that back to -- and supplant -- Genesis 1 with it.

Meanwhile, everyone who is more interested in reality than their own religious comfort blanket has no trouble at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, in case you haven't realized it over time, nobody here really cares about your opinions on the Bible as they relate to science, because they are just one fringe absurdity after another.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

AV, in case you haven't realized it over time, nobody here really cares about your opinions on the Bible as they relate to science, because they are just one fringe absurdity after another.

Hear, hear.