LOUD MOUTH:
I have put my responses in purple.
--I give you credit for trying to answer the Qs. You no way answered them, but you did try.
Qs, # 1. We are told by people like Richard Dawkins and others that bacteria turned into things like sponges and jelly fish and then eventually into you. Give one shred of evidence for that.
The evidence is in the fundamental unity of life that simply doesn't have to be there other than for common ancestry. ---
This is a faith based statement. It is not based on facts.
It presupposes that evolution is true and then reasons backwards from that, faulty, premise. --- For example, we use the same tRNA anti-codons and the same metabolic pathways. If life did not share a common ancestor, then the tRNA's and metabolic pathways could have been very different. ATG codes for methionine in humans, but is there any reason why it couldn't code for alanine in bacteria? ---
Rhetorical Qs. are not scientific data. ----There is certainly nothing stopping that from happening, other than common ancestry.---
Fallacy of the Single Cause and Presuming Omniscience logical fallacies, not data based statements.
LoricaLady stated, "
I'll give you the real evidence. See if you can refute it. Yes, bacteria do change somewhat. But every last one of them stays a bacteria. Always have. Ditto sponges, jelly fish etc."
Just for reference, that is not evidence. That is an assertion.
--- Sorry, but as above, you are the one who is confusing asssertions with evidence. I have checked out the data on bacteria and they stay bacteria. As mentioned earlier, this includes so called Cambrian fossilized bacteria that are simply bacteria. My statements are based on facts.
Qs. # 2 We are told that natural selection leads to evolution. Again, we see change, indeed, through natural selection. Look at all those countless varieties, for ex. of fish in the waterways and birds in the air....all staying fish and birds.
That is what you should see if evolution is true
.---Your opinion based on backward reasoning and the assumption that evolution has to be true.--- You don't evolve out of your ancestry. You are what your ancestors were, plus modifications. Humans are still apes, still primates, still mammals, still vertebrates, and still eukaryotes.
-- You have just made a series of statements which do not even address the Qs I have asked and which are based on nothing more than your opinion, with no backup data at all. ---If we are to believe the argument being put forward by LoricaLady, then all eukaryotes, from pine trees to people, evolving from a single celled eukaryotic common ancestor isn't change simply because we can describe all of those species with one name: eukaryote
.--- I don't even get your point here. What you should have done was to explain why it is that natural selection, which supposedly leads to evoltution, actually leads to different varieties of the same kinds of life forms. You don't explain how fish staying fish and birds staying birds through natural selection is showing evolution - and I state that it shows the opposite.
This is what I call the creationist name game. They think that if they can use the same name to describe two different species that they can somehow claim that no change has happened. As we can all see, this just doesn't work. ---
Your so called "name game" still doesn't give any evidence that natural selection is leading to evolution. Natural selection is happening all the time all over the planet. There is evidence overflowing on the planet that natural selection is causing bees to turn into different kind of bees, sharks to turn into different kinds of sharks, woodpeckers to turn into different kinds of woodpeckers. There is zip, zilch, nada evidence that natural selection is causing fish to be nonfish, finches to be nonfinches, etc. etc. etc. I like evidence, not theories that fly in the face of the actual evidence. --
Then we get even more empty assertions, like this one:
"
In order to turn a reptile into one of countless other varieties of reptiles there is only the need to shuffle, or eliminate, some genetic material it already has, through natural selection or even human intervention. To turn a reptile into a bird you would need totally new, bird, DNA for things like wings, feathers, beaks etc."
This claim is never supported by any evidence. Nowhere does LoricaLady support this assertion.
--- Oh dear. I don't have the time to explain DNA for you and how it works. I suggest you Google, a lot, on the topic of DNA. Perhaps once you truly understand it, you will not be so fast at making assertions and calling them evidence. Later on you will accuse me, in this post, of not understanding evolution. Friend, if you don't understand DNA, and you obviously do not, you are lost.---
Qs #3 We are told mutations are the 2nd mechanism leading to evolution. Where is the evidence for that? Yes, mutations happen all the time. Virtually all are harmful, and the few "beneficial" ones are debatable. Even if they are beneficial in some very slight way, though, where is the evidence that mutations build on one another like leggos to create new structures, say to turn a fin into a foot?
This is a really easy one to answer. Why do you think humans are different from chimps? It is due to a difference in DNA sequence, is it not?
---Actually, that is not the only reason at all. For ex. the chimps' DNA has different, coded, instructions from ours. Again, you assert things very boldly when you really don't understand a basic things like DNA. Also, here is another example of you presenting an assertion, based on no data, and a rhetorical Q., and thinking that is somehow answering the Qs. You are...not...answering the Qs!-- You can directly see the mutations that have made all of these species different from each other.
---Where is the answer to my Q about evidence for mutations building on one another like leggos? You are just ignoring that because you probably know there is no such evidence.
Genetic equidistance is evidence that mutations accumulate.
"The
genetic equidistance phenomenon was first noted in 1963 by
Emanuel Margoliash, who wrote: "It appears that the number of residue differences between
cytochrome C of any two species is mostly conditioned by the time elapsed since the lines of evolution leading to these two species originally diverged."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock --
Here we see some more typical "evo think". We are told "It appears that...." and then theories are presented as if they are validating data. They offer no evidence that "these two species originally diverged" and have none, yet that assertion is presented as scientific fact.
You can check the data yourself here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/homologene?cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AlignmentScores&list_uids=133055
Please learn to do critical thinking. Yes indeed mutations accumulate. However, I asked you for evidence that they build on one another like leggos to do things like turn a fin into a foot. Garbage accumulates and by and large that's what mutations are, garbage. Does the garbage in your home build on itself like leggos to create complex structures?
Also, nowhere is any data shown for the claim that a majority of mutations are
harmful. --- The information that mutations are ordinarily harmful can be found all over the net, including on evo. believing sites. Do more research. You are presenting yourself as someone who is very knowledgeable about science. Well, let's just say you need to do a heck of a lot more research.
Qs, # 4 Pick any "transitional" fossil you like, Lucy, Australopithecus, whatever. Then answer these Qs with data, with evidence. How do you know it ever had a single descendant significantly different from itself in any way much less that it eventually changed from say Ambulocetus, a little animal with four legs and hooves, into a great whale?
It is the mixture of physical characteristics that evidences evolution.
-- So, when they tell me ambulocetus, which looks pretty much like a horse and has 4 legs and hooves, turned into a great whale because it has some minor similarity in its ear to whales, I'm supposed to buy that? Because of its "mixture of physical characteristics"? Bull. Learn to spot and not be fooled by the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy. It is the fave in evo. lit, especially with "transitional forms."--- The theory of evolution predicts that we should see fossils with a mixture of human and basal ape features, and that we should not see fossils with a mixture of ape and dog features.
The Bible states that life forms were made fully formed and that creation stopped on the sixth day. We can predict that we would find fossils showing just that. There would be stasis in the fossil record (also vast worldwide fossil graveyards with marine life fossils all through the so called Geologic Column, even on mountain ranges, due to the Great Flood) and no new kingdoms, phylum, etc. but things staying basically the same. That's what we predict and what we see.It is these predictions that are tested with the fossil data. You seemed to have confused the terms transitional and ancestral. They are not the same thing. ---
If you will check out, below, your own definition for transitional fossils you will see the word "ancestral" being used. You can't separate "transitional" from ancestral.
"A
transitional fossil is any
fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group. --- Fallacy of the Single Cause, Presuming Omniscience Fallacy, Incomplete Comparison Fallacy..
[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence.--- Siiiigh. Don't you see the obvious here? They are admitting they don't really have the evidence, but they are going to tell you all about what happened anyway. --- Therefore, we can't assume transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
Overall, you appear to have a lot of misinformation, and do not understand what the theory of evolution states, or how it is tested
. --- Friend, I would say that statement is true of you and also that you don't understand logical fallacies and are getting presumptions and theories mixed up with actual evidence.
No, you did not answer a single Q with any actual scientific data at all. Sorry, but that's simply the truth.
We have plenty of evidence showing that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, such as the ERV evidence. Again, you are calling inferences and presumptions "evidence."
I'm sorry. That's all I have the time and, frankly, the patience for. I'll respond to one or two more people and then I'm finished with this string.
o that of apes, we
