Evolution is not science

[Heissonear]

It becomes a lie when you claim that your source says things it doesn't say.

Why is that a problem?

And of the mutations that are either deleterious or neutral, the vast majority are neutral, not detrimental as creationists claim.

Are you telling me that religious organizations will not publish science demonstrating that their beliefs are true? Really? Who are these scientists producing this research that they can not get published? What experiments are they doing?

The fact of the matter is that private, religiously based schools with scientific research departments teach and use evolution, not creationism.

It is a conspiracy theory. There is no research supporting creationism to publish. It doesn't exist.

What a rant!

All in defense - the foundation of evolution is being exposed. You don't like it, definitely.

Defend the fossil record for evolution, or the lack thereof. I'm still waiting.

.

 

[Loudmouth]

Read in context, it would help. Are you ready for a dose of mutations?

Are you?

Let's start with the 35 million mutations that separate humans and chimps. Do you think all 35 million are harmful, or are they responsible for the differences between humans and chimps?

 

[Loudmouth]

What a rant!

All in defense - the foundation of evolution is being exposed. You don't like it, definitely.

Defend the fossil record for evolution, or the lack thereof. I'm still waiting.

.

What needs defending? The only thing we are doing is pointing out the lies told by you and other creationists.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Loudmouth]

Your science boils down to evidence. Where is the transition fossils evidence I've repeatedly requested?

Are you incapable of using Google?

 

[Heissonear]

T. roseae[/]

You didn't understand the question?

Show the series of fossils in sequential strata that shows clear morphological changes from one species to another.

No common guise of mix and match, even of fragments, as so called evidence.

.

 

[Heissonear]

Are you incapable of using Google?

You have no data? I keep asking. Show a series of fossils in sequential strata that shows the morphological changes from one species to another.

 

[HitchSlap]

You didn't understand the question?

Show the series of fossils in sequential strata that shows clear morphological changes from one species to another.

No common guise of mix and match, even of fragments, as so called evidence.

.

Perhaps you are qualified to answer this question. Did Neil Shubin use the ToE or prayer, to find T. roaseae?

 

[Loudmouth]

You have no data? I keep asking. Show a series of fossils in sequential strata that shows the morphological changes from one species to another.

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
• (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
• (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
• (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
• (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
• (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
• (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
• (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
• (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
• (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
• (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
• (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
• (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
• (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

 

[KWCrazy]

That is a far cry from the 99.9% being harmful, isn't it.

You DO realize I was countering that claim, right?

No, it isn't. It is a lie.

Since I cited talkorigins.com, your Bible, let me quote from that link.
"Mutations happen.
They happen with great regularity.
Almost all mutations are neutral.
Of the remainder, benefit/harm depends on circumstances"

If all "most all" mutations are neutral, then it supports what I said that most mutations are deleterious or neutral. You called me a liar. Now either retract your statement or provide evidence that most mutations are benevolent.

From another source;
"Most mutations are not beneficial, since any change in the delicate balance of an organism having a high level of adaptation to its environment tends to be disruptive. As the environment changes, however, mutations can prove advantageous and thus contribute to evolutionary change in the species."

"In summary, it is generally accepted that the majority of mutations are neutral or deleterious, with rare mutations being advantageous; however, the proportion of types of mutations varies between species."

The real made-up fantasy is your supposition that science; the study of the physical world; could somehow disprove things which did not occur by natural processes.

 

[Loudmouth]

You didn't understand the question?

Show the series of fossils in sequential strata that shows clear morphological changes from one species to another.

No common guise of mix and match, even of fragments, as so called evidence.

.

The goalposts are lurching about quite rapidly.

 

[KWCrazy]

Are you?

Let's start with the 35 million mutations that separate humans and chimps. Do you think all 35 million are harmful, or are they responsible for the differences between humans and chimps?

Humans and chimps are different because they were designed differently from the beginning. While it could well be that you are descended from chimps, I make no such claim. As for me, I am descended from Adam to Noah, and from Noah to the rest of my family.

 

[Loudmouth]

You DO realize I was countering that claim, right?
Since I cited talkorigins.com, your Bible, let me quote from that link.

Talkorigins isn't my bible. Funny how you have to pull people down into the mud with you.

If all "most all" mutations are neutral, then it supports what I said that most mutations are deleterious or neutral. You called me a liar.

Why don't you also state that most mutations are either neutral or beneficial? Why? Because you are trying to support the lie that most mutations are harmful.

The real made-up fantasy is your supposition that science; the study of the physical world; could somehow disprove things which did not occur by natural processes.

Why don't you start by presenting evidence of these supernatural processes. From what I have seen, they are entirely made up.

 

[Loudmouth]

Humans and chimps are different because they were designed differently from the beginning.

Do you or do you not admit that the differences between the human and chimp genome are responsible for the physical differences between humans and chimps?

 

[Heissonear]

Are you?

Let's start with the 35 million mutations that separate humans and chimps. Do you think all 35 million are harmful, or are they responsible for the differences between humans and chimps?

Like many the use of imagination with a few facts is pure conjecture.

Those mutations never occurred.

If you say they have then where is your evidence? Hard evidence, not rationalization, but real world data. Show me such mutation changes in the fossil record, showing sequential morphological changes through a ssequential series of strata.

Let's see the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Like many the use of imagination with a few facts is pure conjecture.

Those mutations never occurred.

Evidence please.

If you say they have then where is your evidence? Hard evidence, not rationalization, but real world data.

If those differences are due to random mutations then we should see a difference in the accumulation of synonymous (Ks) and non-synonymous (Ka) mutations in genes. That is EXACTLY what we see.

In comparing the human and chimp genome they found the following:

"The KA/KS ratio for the human–chimpanzee lineage (ωhominid) is 0.23."
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature

This is the smoking gun of random mutations being filtered through selection.

Show me such mutation changes in the fossil record, showing sequential morphological changes through a ssequential series of strata.

Already done.

 

[Heissonear]

Evidence please.

If those differences are due to random mutations then we should see a difference in the accumulation of synonymous (Ks) and non-synonymous (Ka) mutations in genes. That is EXACTLY what we see.

In comparing the human and chimp genome they found the following:

"The KA/KS ratio for the human–chimpanzee lineage (ωhominid) is 0.23."
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature

This is the smoking gun of random mutations being filtered through selection.

Already done.

Another reply to defend evolution without the field data requested. You are fighting brush fires with a squirt gun.

Sequential fossil record please.
.

 

[Loudmouth]

Another reply to defend evolution without the field data requested. You are fighting brush fires with a squirt gun.

Sequential fossil record please.
.

Field data was already given to you in post 237 of this thread.

You asked for real world data that shows that the differences between chimps and humans are due to mutations. I showed you that real world data. You can run from it all you want, but everyone can see you running away from the data.

"Arguments against macroevolution, based on so-called gaps in the fossil records, are also profoundly weakened by the much more detailed and digital information revealed from the study of genomes. Outside of a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his theory."--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

 

[Heissonear]

.

Once again, let's see evidence for evolution from the fossil record.

If evolution happened then the fossils we collect and study would show it clearly.

There is over a half of a billion years of sedimentary rock record that contains prolific types of fossils. Additionally, we have miles and miles of sedimentary rock deposited over the past 500 million years which contain such fossils. During the Jurassic to Cretaceous period of about 190 million years, known as the reptile age, there were from 2 to 4 miles of sediments deposited, in all types of environments for life during that period. Again, the sedimentary rock record on earth represents miles of deposited sediments from a wide range of environments, and a vast range in life forms or species existed over hundreds of millions of years.

However, Evolutionists have a major and very serious problem. The vast amount of fossils deposited over more than a half a billion years all over the globe do not show "transitional fossils". That's correct, no single series of fossils that show morphological transition from one species life form to another species in a sequential order in the same geographic strata, regardless of how thick the strata sequence.

Through rationalizing that fossils represented ages gone by, Naturalists were sure that fossils were "linked" in progression; that older forms of life changed morphologically over time into the newer and more recent and advanced life forms. Naturalists postulated this change in life over time occurred through a method called Evolution; that "Evolution of Life" occurred on earth.

Well, the fossil record shows no such thing called Evolution. The problem? No "transition fossils". None.

There is presentation and discussion about many many "facts" for Evolution, however, the real world sedimentary rock record shows no such thing as transition fossils. The very foundational evidence to support Evolution is missing. It does not exist.

.

 

[kellhus]

. Once again, let's see evidence for evolution from the fossil record. If evolution happened then the fossils we collect and study would show it clearly. There is over a half of a billion years of sedimentary rock record that contains prolific types of fossils. Additionally, we have miles and miles of sedimentary rock deposited over the past 500 million years which contain such fossils. During the Jurassic to Cretaceous period of about 190 million years, known as the reptile age, there were from 2 to 4 miles of sediments deposited, in all types of environments for life during that period. Again, the sedimentary rock record on earth represents miles of deposited sediments from a wide range of environments, and a vast range in life forms or species existed over hundreds of millions of years. However, Evolutionists have a major and very serious problem. The vast amount of fossils deposited over more than a half a billion years all over the globe do not show "transitional fossils". That's correct, no single series of fossils that show morphological transition from one species life form to another species in a sequential order in the same geographic strata, regardless of how thick the strata sequence. Through rationalizing that fossils represented ages gone by, Naturalists were sure that fossils were "linked" in progression; that older forms of life changed morphologically over time into the newer and more recent and advanced life forms. Naturalists postulated this change in life over time occurred through a method called Evolution; that "Evolution of Life" occurred on earth. Well, the fossil record shows no such thing called Evolution. The problem? No "transition fossils". None. There is presentation and discussion about many many "facts" for Evolution, however, the real world sedimentary rock record shows no such thing as transition fossils. The very foundational evidence to support Evolution is missing. It does not exist. .

There are transitional fossils. You merely ignore them.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Once again, let's see evidence for evolution from the fossil record.

Once again, 100% of the evidence from the fossil record supports the ToE. Anyone who has actually bothered to study the subject - which you blatantly have not - knows this.

Once again, even if there were no fossils AT ALL, the evidence from genetics alone would be sufficient support for the ToE.