Evolution is not science

[Heissonear]

There are transitional fossils. You merely ignore them.

Do you understand the problem?

Show me a Paleontology text that has even one series of fossils from a sequential strata that step by step presents the morphological changes from one species to another.

Full representative fossils. Not fragments and creative mix and match force fits.

Without this evidence Evolution lacks real world proof. All else is conjecture.

Before you state "there are transition fossils" you may want to look for the evidence. Then present such evidence.

The foundation Evolution is based on has no evidence. All we see are already existing species. No series of changes to show Evolution occurred.

Do you want to face this issue that Darwin feared may prove his hypothesis wrong?

This matter would be "settled" in every Paleontology and Historical Geology text, in full color photos of each fossil, its state of transition thats obvious, and further ptesentation of the hundreds of other "sequential strata that shows the series of transitional fossils, photo by photo, location, age in stratum, environmental conditions, and the like, beyond doubt PROVING EVOLUTION.

Nature magazine would be presenting the "latest set of transition fossils found" on a regular basis to futher support Evolution, the very foundational evidence.

But look at Nature Magazine through the 144 years of publication, there are no "transitional fossils series" presented, only CARTOONS and "INFERRED". Sorry, cartoons and something inferred are not fundamental, foundational evidence that proves Evolution. All they present are already existing species and "truths" such as Punctuated Equilibrium by Doctor so-and-so.

I don't follow men.

Let's see the Nature or Science Magazine articles "evidence".

Let's see the Paleontology texts "evidence".

Let's see the Historical Geology texts "evidence".

Let's see the fundamental data that shows Evolution occurred.

.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Do you understand the problem?

You don't even understand the subject. You are therefor incapable of communicating a problem in the first place.

 

[Heissonear]

You don't even understand the subject. You are therefor incapable of communicating a problem in the first place.

Of the 20 points presented by Pyramidologist you have failed to refute, including this case about transition fossils, and the lack thereof. This spontaneous and abrupt wisk aside is bias action. Let's see the evidence, real evidence, for these 20 points against evolution.

.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Of the 20 points presented by Pyramidologist

All 20 represent reiterations of the same vacuous non-arguments creationists have been parroting for decades.

Let's see the evidence, real evidence, for these 20 points against evolution.

You don't know what the the ToE is. Your attempts at criticism do not even rise to the level of laughable.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of the 20 points presented by Pyramidologist you have failed to refute, including this case about transition fossils, and the lack thereof. This spontaneous and abrupt wisk aside is bias action. Let's see the evidence, real evidence, for these 20 points against evolution.

.

Post 229 please.

 

[Heissonear]

Post 229 please.

Such was your reply? Very limited content.

You act like you are in a hurry.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Such was your reply? Very limited content.

You act like you are in a hurry.

.

That is all that it takes.

Here is a simple question. If evolution is not true why does all scientific evidence found to date support evolution and not a lick supports creationism?

 

[sfs]

That is all that it takes.

Here is a simple question. If evolution is not true why does all scientific evidence found to date support evolution and not a lick supports creationism?

Here's another question: if evolution is not science, why do almost all scientists think it is? Apparently there are two enterprises: True Science, which is practiced by almost no one and which produces no results whatever, and bad, false science, practiced by people too dull to understand True Science, and which produces particle accelerators and space telescopes and cancer drugs.

 

[Heissonear]

That is all that it takes.

Here is a simple question. If evolution is not true why does all scientific evidence found to date support evolution and not a lick supports creationism?

Correction: those in Scientism walk, talk and view what is around them through natural processes. No apprehension of the Spiritual Realm will do that to people deaf to the Holy Spirit.

Without awareness you have yet to see the evidence for God's Creation.

Advisement: stop listening to people who's breath is in their nostrils. If, maybe, and perhaps you will then get to find the Wisdom from above; which has a value nothing in this world compares to.

.

 

[classicalhero]

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?

Can you show all the mutations?

 

[sfs]

Can you show all the mutations?

We can show all of the differences. We can show that the number of differences is just about what you would expect if they'd gotten there because of mutation. We can show that the number of transitions (one base changes to the other of similar shape) is what we would expect, and so is the number of transversions (change to a base of different type). So are the number and types of differences at CpG sites, where mutation rates are much higher. We can show that large-scale rearrangements are bounded by unstable places in the genome, exactly as one would expect if they'd been caused by mutation.

In short, we have many lines of evidence (only some listed here) that the differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes are the result of millions of years of evolution. No creationist has ever offered an alternative explanation for these facts -- because they can't. Creationists don't even want to know about such data; it just disturbs them.

 

[Heissonear]

We can show all of the differences. We can show that the number of differences is just about what you would expect if they'd gotten there because of mutation. We can show that the number of transitions (one base changes to the other of similar shape) is what we would expect, and so is the number of transversions (change to a base of different type). So are the number and types of differences at CpG sites, where mutation rates are much higher. We can show that large-scale rearrangements are bounded by unstable places in the genome, exactly as one would expect if they'd been caused by mutation.

In short, we have many lines of evidence (only some listed here) that the differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes are the result of millions of years of evolution. No creationist has ever offered an alternative explanation for these facts -- because they can't. Creationists don't even want to know about such data; it just disturbs them.

Genome, mutation, what we would expect, yata, yata, yata.

You, with other Naturalists, have exalted yourselves through earthly derived knowledge. But the very foundation of Evolution does not exist. There is no physical evidence that one species has changed into another species through mutations.


.

 

[Nithavela]

Speciation in real time

I guess berkeley is not scientific enough for you, though.

 

[sfs]

Genome, mutation, what we would expect, yata, yata, yata.

You, with other Naturalists, have exalted yourselves through earthly derived knowledge. But the very foundation of Evolution does not exist. There is no physical evidence that one species has changed into another species through mutations.
.

"Yata, yata, yata." There you have the depth of creationist response to real science. Why do you think that is? Why is your immediate reaction to change the subject? A real scientist -- heck, a curious sixth grader -- doesn't behave that way. She wants to understand why things are the way they are: does mutation explain these facts? Would something else explain them better? But you don't.

 

[Heissonear]

"Yata, yata, yata." There you have the depth of creationist response to real science. Why do you think that is? Why is your immediate reaction to change the subject? A real scientist -- heck, a curious sixth grader -- doesn't behave that way. She wants to understand why things are the way they are: does mutation explain these facts? Would something else explain them better? But you don't.

You may not like those who do not go for your "song and dance" science replies. I don't go for two dollar bills.

"A real scientist" is a big part of the subject. If you walk by Scientism, well guess what that scientist will promote, discuss, etc.

That is who you are facing, someone pointing out who YOU are.

But you are use to only the "Creationists" as being wrong. Well, you are learning something about Naturalists, and you don't seem to appreciate it.

.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You may not like those who do not go for your "song and dance" science replies. I don't go for two dollar bills.

That's a shame -- 2 dollar bills are real.

"A real scientist" is a big part of the subject. If you walk by Scientism, well guess what that scientist will promote, discuss, etc.

A magical spiritual realm that nobody can see? oh, wait, that's you.

 

[HitchSlap]

You may not like those who do not go for your "song and dance" science replies. I don't go for two dollar bills.

So, by "two dollar bills," you mean things that actually exist?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Genome, mutation, what we would expect, yata, yata, yata.

You, with other Naturalists, have exalted yourselves through earthly derived knowledge.

But we haven't been exalting you -- infuriating, isn't it?

But the very foundation of Evolution does not exist. There is no physical evidence that one species has changed into another species through mutations.

Some More Observed Speciation Events

 

[Loudmouth]

Such was your reply? Very limited content.

You act like you are in a hurry.

.

Post 229 please.

 

[Loudmouth]

Genome, mutation, what we would expect, yata, yata, yata.

This is the usual response when creationists are faced with real science. Perhaps you can actually deal with the evidence instead of acting like you are in elementary school?