Ignoring The Evidence : Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

[Justatruthseeker]

After each extinction event, we see more diversity and new life forms appearing, mainly because previous predators no longer exist or are a major influence as they once were. Additionally extinction events are due to environmental changes, where abrupt or gradual. Isolation of populations also spawns diversity. Currently recognized are 5 major events and some 20 minor events.

For those that did not go instinct there most certainly is.

Name one that did not go extinct that displays evolution? Sharks? They just got smaller, still sharks. Crocodiles - same.

I know you like to believe they evolved - but then you are the one preaching missing links - not me. I don't need to claim missing links - need not rely on Fairie Dust and imagination - just accept observational evidence. Asian remains Asian and African remains African - yet when they mate a new infraspecific taxa comes into the record - suddenly - with no links missing at all.

No they did not. Furthermore, you are ignoring that when terms like "short, quickly, and rapidly" are used with respect to geologic time, it can mean hundreds of thousands and even millions of years. An excellent example of that is the Cambrian Explosion.

Before which not a single speck of life of any kind can be found - it just appears suddenly - fully formed.

Just as the claimed oldest life appeared suddenly and has remained the same for billions of years and never evolved at all - despite changing conditions all over the globe.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html

But it's just "missing" right??????

But wait, no it's not those that are the oldest but these.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Tree_of_Life/Stromatolites.htm

No wait, it's these,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-oldest-ever-complete-example-of-8940031.html

No, no it's these and the planet was just like it was today, not dry and hot as required by planetary formation theories.

http://www.techinsider.io/oldest-fossils-ever-discovered-2015-10

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But... we're... not... made... of... dust.

Oh, NVM.

Show me how the protons and electrons that make up us are any different from the protons and electrons which make up dust??????? Well????? Let's discuss the science on the atomic or quantum level if you like.

I predict avoidance and strawmen which avoid an actual discussion of the subject.

 

[HitchSlap]

Show me how the protons and electrons that make up us are any different from the protons and electrons which make up dust??????? Well?????

Typical soil makeup:

• Quartz: SiO2
• Calcite: CaCO3
• Feldspar: KAlSi3O8
• Mica (biotite): K(Mg,Fe)3AlSi3O10(OH)2

Typical human makeup:

C, H, O, N, P & S

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Typical soil makeup:

• Quartz: SiO2
• Calcite: CaCO3
• Feldspar: KAlSi3O8
• Mica (biotite): K(Mg,Fe)3AlSi3O10(OH)2

Typical human makeup:

C, H, O, N, P & S

Strawman one.

And every single one of those elements is composed of the exact same protons and electrons. I asked you how the protons and electrons which make up us, differ from those that make up dust????? Let's try again - addressing the actual subject.

 

[HitchSlap]

Strawman one.

And every single one of those elements is composed of the exact same protons and electrons. I asked you how the protons and electrons which make up us, differ from those that make up dust????? Let's try again - addressing the actual subject.

Right, 'cept some of those is human and somes is dirts. It's a thing. Look it up.

 

[Jimmy D]

I'm wondering the same thing. Why would anyone claim such a thing? So why does your fellow evolutionist claim such a thing????

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...an-evolutionist.7916357/page-20#post-68904671

"If evolution were false, we would find all forms of life that ever existed in all layers of geologic strata. Or are you going to say they all just popped into existence at just the right place and time?"

Yet it is only you all that claim they "popped" into existence. I say two infraspecific taxa mated at those times creating a third - just like ALL observations of life propagating have shown us. Only YOU want me to believe they magically arose from one thing.



I sure did. I can assure you Asian did not evolve from one thing - anymore than Afro-Asian evolved from just Asian or Africans. And the Asians remained Asian and the African remained African. Neither of them evolved into the Afro-Asian

So my question to you is why do you ignore all the observational evidence????

But go ahead, why don't you tell us where the Asian came from, fitting it to the observational evidence, since you know in all cases it takes two or more infraspecific taxa to create a new one?

Well, come on - show me how well your theory matches direct empirical observation in which you have never once observed one thing evolve into two??????

I'm sorry - I keep forgetting you all care nothing about direct emperical observations which pure theory trumps every time in your minds.

I think you've got reading comprehension issues Justa, do you really think that was Rick was saying? I very rarely type this but - LOL.

I asked you about the origin of asians if you don't believe they're descendants of africans, you're good at repeating where they didn't come from but you won't say where they did come from.

Also you keep going on about direct empirical observation of one thing evolving into another. I know that you're aware of the fact that it's a slow process taking many thousands of generations, only the most mentally challenged person would think you could watch it happening in real time (or a liar trying to misrepresent what the theory says despite knowing better).

It doesn't mean that there isn't empirical evidence there though (in our genes, morphology, fossil record etc).

From Race & Genetics FAQ

Populations of humans from different parts of the world are surprisingly similar genetically, given our large numbers and worldwide distribution. This low level of variation suggests that the size of the human population was much smaller – perhaps just a few thousand people – in the relatively recent past. This finding further supports the idea that modern humans evolved as a relatively small group in eastern Africa within the past 200,000 years and then spread out to occupy the rest of the world, with little or no interbreeding between modern humans and the archaic humans that they gradually replaced.

When populations become dispersed, individuals tend to mate with others who are geographically nearby. In this way, new genetic variants that appear in a population tend to become localized, and geographically separated populations gradually diversify genetically. However, the diversification of the human species has been limited by the recency of our common ancestry and by continued migration between separated populations.

When averaged over the entire genome, about 85 to 90 percent of the genetic diversity present in the human species can be found in any human group. Thus, two individuals chosen from different continents would be expected to differ genetically by just 10 to 15 percent more than two individuals chosen at random from the same continent. However, this level of differentiation generally is still large enough for geneticists to make broad estimates of where an individual’s ancestors lived.

Genetic differences between populations can be amplified by natural selection. For example, the different skin colors seen in human populations today appear to have resulted from natural selection maintaining dark skin in areas of intense sun (to protect the body from sunburn, skin cancer, and other harmful effects) and perhaps favoring light skin in areas of less intense sun (for example, to allow the body to produce sufficient vitamin D to maintain health). Natural selection related to regional differences in foods, parasites, climate, and other environmental factors may have contributed to other genetic differences between populations, but the extent to which these genetic differences affect health is largely unknown.

 

[stevevw]

Yet, every explanation for our reality and universe is a natural one. No god needed.

Funny you should say that. When I here some of the explanations about the universe I think they are pretty close to being as supernatural as anything that people say about God being the creator. Things like multiverses, hologram worlds, worm holes, black holes and string theory are just as far fetched as any science fiction movie. What scientific explanation has ever been made that has any verifiable direct support for how the universe came into existence and how it operates.

The problem is when science tries to come up with a naturalistic explanation they have to appeal to far fetched ideas beyond the boundaries of logic and classical physics to be able to address what they are observing. How do they explain a fine tuned universe for life being able to just fall into place through a naturalistic process of random chance and accident. So there really is no natural explanation for life, existence and the universe as yet that can be verified just fanciful ideas.

 

[stevevw]

Germany and the Scandinavian countries were never part of the Roman Empire.

First of all according to this site some Scandinavian counties were part of the Roman Empire.
http://www.roman-empire.net/maps/empire/extent/rome-modern-day-nations.html

But even so they were on the fringes of the Empire. When the empire was breaking up there was a cross over and many tribes from Germany were influenced by the spread of Christianity that lived on the outskirts of the empire. This started with the Goths in the 4th century who adopted Arianism. From the 6th century, Germanic tribes were converted (and re-converted) by missionaries of the Roman Catholic Church, firstly among the Franks, after Clovis I's conversion to Catholicism in 496.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_5th_century
The Scandinavian countries seemed to be the last to convert around the 8ths century onward. This will explain why they are the least religious/Christian nations now..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Scandinavia

 

[ximmix]

First of all according to this site some Scandinavian counties were part of the Roman Empire.
http://www.roman-empire.net/maps/empire/extent/rome-modern-day-nations.html

And what countries would that be..?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I think you've got reading comprehension issues Justa, do you really think that was Rick was saying? I very rarely type this but - LOL.

I don't think he said anything - I Know it - it's right there in black and white. But then you are quite adept at ignoring the observational evidence. I even more rarely say it but in this instance I will - LOL

You simply prove my point - you will always ignore the observational evidence when it does not conform to your beliefs.

I asked you about the origin of asians if you don't believe they're descendants of africans, you're good at repeating where they didn't come from but you won't say where they did come from.

I told you - fine, you want to believe Africans - so which infraspecific taxa did the African mate with that led to the Asian?????? Because the observational evidence tells you it always takes two or more infraspecific taxa to make a new infraspecific taxa. Sorry - I keep forgetting you are adept at ignoring the observational evidence.

Also you keep going on about direct empirical observation of one thing evolving into another. I know that you're aware of the fact that it's a slow process taking many thousands of generations, only the most mentally challenged person would think you could watch it happening in real time (or a liar trying to misrepresent what the theory says despite knowing better).

I am aware of no such thing except in your own mind. You claim it is a slow process - yet the Afro-Asian takes a whole 9 months to come into existence. Only a liar would try to claim otherwise when he has observed nothing else. Or someone adept at ignoring observational evidence - or both. Take your pick.

It doesn't mean that there isn't empirical evidence there though (in our genes, morphology, fossil record etc).

From Race & Genetics FAQ

Populations of humans from different parts of the world are surprisingly similar genetically, given our large numbers and worldwide distribution. This low level of variation suggests that the size of the human population was much smaller – perhaps just a few thousand people – in the relatively recent past. This finding further supports the idea that modern humans evolved as a relatively small group in eastern Africa within the past 200,000 years and then spread out to occupy the rest of the world, with little or no interbreeding between modern humans and the archaic humans that they gradually replaced.

When populations become dispersed, individuals tend to mate with others who are geographically nearby. In this way, new genetic variants that appear in a population tend to become localized, and geographically separated populations gradually diversify genetically. However, the diversification of the human species has been limited by the recency of our common ancestry and by continued migration between separated populations.

When averaged over the entire genome, about 85 to 90 percent of the genetic diversity present in the human species can be found in any human group. Thus, two individuals chosen from different continents would be expected to differ genetically by just 10 to 15 percent more than two individuals chosen at random from the same continent. However, this level of differentiation generally is still large enough for geneticists to make broad estimates of where an individual’s ancestors lived.

Genetic differences between populations can be amplified by natural selection. For example, the different skin colors seen in human populations today appear to have resulted from natural selection maintaining dark skin in areas of intense sun (to protect the body from sunburn, skin cancer, and other harmful effects) and perhaps favoring light skin in areas of less intense sun (for example, to allow the body to produce sufficient vitamin D to maintain health). Natural selection related to regional differences in foods, parasites, climate, and other environmental factors may have contributed to other genetic differences between populations, but the extent to which these genetic differences affect health is largely unknown.

So now you want us to believe that it is isolation that causes diversity - again ignoring the evidence. As far back as you can trace the Asian population they remained Asian. Only when they mated with the African - no longer were isolated - has diversity in the species been observed. Just as the African remains African as far back as you can trace them. Only when they mated with the Asian - no longer were isolated - has diversity in the species been observed.

So - as long as we ignore that the only time you have ever observed diversity in the species is when two infraspecific taxa mate, can we consider your theory, right? The Asian and the African were geographically isolated - and they remained Asian and African. Only when we bring them together does the Afro-Asian come into existence.

What they mean to say is that the Asian - once the African mated with another infraspecific taxa migrated to Asia and thereafter remained Asian. That the African remained in Africa and remained African.

Again - I need none of your Fairie Dust to explain variation - we have observed it right in front of our eyes.

But again - I keep forgetting you are adept at ignoring observational evidence when it doesn't fit your system of beliefs. genetic proves my point. No Asian became anything but Asian when they were geographically isolated. No African became anything but African when they were geographically isolated. Only when the two were not geographically isolated did variation happen in the species.

And the fact that you show so little disregard for observational evidence shows you really care nothing about the science - since it is that observational evidence that is the foundation for every actual "scientific" theory. Only in evolution (origin of species) and cosmology (origin of the universe) is the observational evidence ignored. In all other "sciences" the observational evidence is paramount to the theory itself. You simply show to the world that ToE is not a true scientific theory - because observational evidence means nothing to you.

 

[Jimmy D]

Okaaaay........ backs nervously away......

 

[stevevw]

And what countries would that be..?

Netherlands, Switzerland and it looks like Germany was once part of the empire as well.

 

[ximmix]

Netherlands, Switzerland and it looks like Germany was once part of the empire as well.

You don't seem to know what Scandinavia is then...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Okaaaay........ backs nervously away......

You mean runs away don't you? The truth is frightening when put up against Fairie Dust. Rather falsifies your beliefs. But then that is why not one single evolutionist will accept observational evidence of how life propagates and variation is observed.

And so the observational evidence still remains unchallenged and unanswered.

Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. Only when Asian and African mate is variation seen within the species.

If you want me to accept that ToE might be a viable theory - then fit your theory to the data and stop asking us all to ignore the observational data for pure theory.

The funny thing is I have nothing much against the possibility of mutations once in a blue moon benefiting infraspecific taxa, but that you ignore how large variation is created within the species and promote only those small mutations that only affect a tiny portion of the population - family inheritance.

But I've seen all your posts - and confidently predict more one-liners and avoidance.

 

[Astrophile]

Rather convenient isn't it to just pretend life magically happened and only then will we discuss science. Before that we will ignore anything. Act as if life just always existed so we can ignore it's origins.

We don't have to know where atoms came from to do research into chemistry. We don't have to know where the Earth's atmosphere came from to do research into meteorology or to forecast the weather. Why do we need to know where life came from to study evolution?

 

[Astrophile]

Sorry, duplicate post.

 

[Astrophile]

First of all according to this site some Scandinavian counties were part of the Roman Empire.
http://www.roman-empire.net/maps/empire/extent/rome-modern-day-nations.html

The Scandinavian countries are Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland. According to your map, none of them were ever part of the Roman Empire. Germany is not a Scandinavian country.

The Scandinavian countries seemed to be the last to convert around the 8ths century onward. This will explain why they are the least religious/Christian nations now..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Scandinavia

According to your own link, Sweden, Norway and Denmark established Archdioceses that were directly responsible to the Pope during the 12th century, but it took more than a hundred years for ordinary people to accept Christianity. By the way, Lithuania did not adopt Christianity until about 1360, well into the 14th century.

 

[Astrophile]

Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian.

What do you mean by 'Asian'? The Chinese, Mongolians, Japanese, Siberians, Malaysians, Indonesians, Indians, Sinhalese, Persians, Arabs and Turks are all Asians. Did they come from a single ancestor, or were they the products of the matings of two infraspecific taxa?

 

[stevevw]

You don't seem to know what

You don't seem to know what Scandinavia is then...

is then...

Ah sorry I just looked it up. I always get these countries mixed up being Denmark, Sweden, Norway being Scandinavian and the others the Dutch/Netherlands and Switzerland not. I always think they are all part of Scandinavia because they all seem similar and in close range of each other.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Until someone starts paying me to do it, it remains a hobby.

Do you have a better label for those that adhere to a religion?

What are you talking about?