Is there any evidence for evolution?

[mark kennedy]

Yeah, I confirmed. Cyanobacteria are a likely progenitor of chloroplasts and eventually plants. Not ancestral to heterotrophic eukaryotes.

Write a peer reviewed paper.

Put up or shut up as they say.

Don't be ridiculous. You and I go into a bakery and buy some fresh baked bread and cupcakes. Now we May well need a baker to prepare them but it's a lot less challenging to eat.

 

[VirOptimus]

Don't be ridiculous. You and I go into a bakery and buy some fresh baked bread and cupcakes. Now we May well need a baker to prepare them but it's a lot less challenging to eat.

No, you want to challange established shience you write a peer reviewed article. Its how it works.

You dont "go to the bakery".

 

[AdamSK]

I'm not sure what peer reviewed paper you're wanting Mark to write. He's explaining his interpretation of the evidence, not positing different evidence. I think the eating versus baking analogy is probably valid.

 

[VirOptimus]

I'm not sure what peer reviewed paper you're wanting Mark to write. He's explaining his interpretation of the evidence, not positing different evidence. I think the eating versus baking analogy is probably valid.

No, it really isnt.

He says common descent didnt happen. Thats an astounding claim against the settled science. That sorr of claim should be in a peer reviewed paper, that is the proper channel. Not on a small discussion forum on the net.

 

[mark kennedy]

Pure rhetoric. You extensively quote any acknowledgement that there's a discrepancy in the data or a transition not fully understood. Then you turn around and say that no one ever acknowledges any problems.
Biologists are looking for aberrations in the model and then finding explanations for them - that is what scientists are doing in all experimental fields. The model is not widely suspect nor in particular jeopardy, but as in every other area we are refining the data and we do find things that don't fit. To act like we don't is just as dishonest as to act like those anomalies undermine whole model. Neither is true.

Theory is always a unified theory including and explaining all the facts under consideration. To call someone's argument pure theory is highly flattering. A little generous but thanks just the same.

Meanwile back at the dawn of the stone age the encephalition quotient grows by an order of magnitude which has never happened in the mammal or primate lines. Yet you have the audacity to call warranted sketism that abandoning all theistic causation is a reasonable demand.

You talk to me like I'm a fool but I'm actually pretty well read and I have serious problems with this asinine Darwinian all powerful presupposition.

 

[lesliedellow]

Theory is always a unified theory including and explaining all the facts under consideration. To call someone's argument pure theory is highly flattering. A little generous but thanks just the same.

Methinks you need a new pair of glasses.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, it really isnt.

He says common descent didnt happen. Thats an astounding claim against the settled science. That sorr of claim should be in a peer reviewed paper, that is the proper channel. Not on a small discussion forum on the net.

Its not science and Darwinism has always been hotly disputed especially by scientists. Creationists regardless of their qualification never get published in peer reviewed journals for the same reason I never get invited to tea with the queen of England. We both have better things to do.

There is nothing settled about chimp and human common ancestry that wasn't presupposes 150 years ago by Darwin and the empiracle atheistic materialist called naturalists.

Here is a pretty solid reason massive overhauls of highly conserved vital genes are improbable in the astronomical extreme. Its called selective coefficients. The cost would far outweigh the benefits because the multiplicative effects on fitness would have killed our founding ancestors in the womb early in the seventh week of development.

The only thing more astonishing then this mythical giant leap being forced on everyone is that you had the nerve to make another pedantic post that ignores the extensive lines of evidence explained to you repetadly

 

[VirOptimus]

Its not science and Darwinism has always been hotly disputed especially by scientists. Creationists regardless of their qualification never get published in peer reviewed journals for the same reason I never get invited to tea with the queen of England. We both have better things to do.

There is nothing settled about chimp and human common ancestry that wasn't presupposes 150 years ago by Darwin and the empiracle atheistic materialist called naturalists.

Here is a pretty solid reason massive overhauls of highly conserved vital genes are improbable in the astronomical extreme. Its called selective coefficients. The cost would far outweigh the benefits because the multiplicative effects on fitness would have killed our founding ancestors in the womb early in the seventh week of development.

The only thing more astonishing then this mythical giant leap being forced on everyone is that you had the nerve to make another pedantic post that ignores the extensive lines of evidence explained to you repetadly

Then Im sure it will be very easy for you to write a peer reviewed paper. What are you afraid off?

Your reason "that you have better things to do" rings hollow.

The reason creation science nevere gets published in peer review is because it isnt science.

 

[USincognito]

Which leads one to ask what this vitally important regulatory is doing there. Its represented in both chimpanzees and chickens with only two nucleotides diverging which represents over 300 million years then 2 million years ago it gets 18.

As if this hasn't been explained to you a dozen times or more on this forum.

Mark, it's been 10 years. Did you ever contact Dr. Haussler and explain to him how his HAR1 research was the silver bullet that killed human evolution?

Actually forget this suggestion. Have you contacted David Haussler directly and explained to him how his HAR1 work is the smoking gun standing over the corpse of human chimp common ancestry?
His website was linked to on the webpage you keep posting.
http://www.cbse.ucsc.edu/staff/hausslerlab.shtml
haussler@soe.ucsc.edu

Or have you alredy shared the startling news his discovery has destroyed evolutionary theory with him and just chosen not to share it with us yet?

Come on man, Haussler's not one of those phantasmal "scientists giving up on evolution" we keep hearing about that you're holding out on us are you?

 

[lesliedellow]

Then Im sure it will be very easy for you to write a peer reviewed paper. What are you afraid off?

He is afraid of being laughed at by people who know what they are talking about. I don't know what he does for a living, but I am prepared to bet that he has no qualifications as a biologist.

 

[AdamSK]

Theory is always a unified theory including and explaining all the facts under consideration. To call someone's argument pure theory is highly flattering. A little generous but thanks just the same.

How is "pure rhetoric" the same as "pure theory"?

 

[VirOptimus]

He is afraid of being laughed at by people who know what they are talking about. I don't know what he does for a living, but I am prepared to bet that he has no qualifications as a biologist.

He doesnt.

In fact, he has no academic background in science at all.

 

[mark kennedy]

Then Im sure it will be very easy for you to write a peer reviewed paper. What are you afraid off?

Your reason "that you have better things to do" rings hollow.

The reason creation science nevere gets published in peer review is because it isnt science.

It doesn't need to be a science to be real history. Darwinism is nothing but philosophical presupposition passing itself of as science. What has happened is they have rejected God in their understanding so the ontology is Darwinian stone age ape men myths and convoluted string theory time travel and warp drive.

 

[USincognito]

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/piltdown-and-the-search-for-human-ancestors.3320944/

 

[VirOptimus]

It doesn't need to be a science to be real history. Darwinism is nothing but philosophical presupposition passing itself of as science. What has happened is they have rejected God in their understanding so the ontology is Darwinian stone age ape men myths and convoluted string theory time travel and warp drive.

If you argue against common descent it needs to be science. Otherwise you are in the wrong subforum.

Now, write the paper or admit that you cant.

 

[lesliedellow]

It doesn't need to be a science to be real history. Darwinism is nothing but philosophical presupposition passing itself of as science. What has happened is they have rejected God in their understanding so the ontology is Darwinian stone age ape men myths and convoluted string theory time travel and warp drive.

More crap. I suppose Christians like Francis Collins, Martin Nowak, Simon Conway Morris and Dennis Alexander have all rejected God as well? Can't creationists come to terms with reality, at least insofar as recognising that most of the world's Christians have no trouble with Evolution?

 

[mark kennedy]

As if this hasn't been explained to you a dozen times or more on this forum.

Mark, it's been 10 years. Did you ever contact Dr. Haussler and explain to him how his HAR1 research was the silver bullet that killed human evolution?

The theory of evolution has never Been defined scientifically because it not a scientific theory its not even an hypothesis and it conflicts with the only two laws of science related inheritance. That's why the need for a synthesis. The thesis was Mendilian genetics. The antithesis was Darwinian universal common descent. See my signature.

 

[VirOptimus]

The theory of evolution has never Been defined scientifically because it not a scientific theory its not even an hypothesis and it conflicts with the only two laws of science related inheritance. That's why the need for a synthesis. The thesis was Mendilian genetics. The antithesis was Darwinian universal common descent. See my signature.

Then your paper should be a cakewalk. Go on, start writing.

 

[mark kennedy]

More crap. I suppose Christians like Francis Collins, Martin Nowak, Simon Conway Morris and Dennis Alexander have all rejected God as well? Can't creationists come to terms with reality, at least insofar as recognising that most of the world's Christians have no trouble with Evolution?

It concerns me very little how many professing Christians sell out to Darwinism. That's not my problem. Unlike you I have an interest in evolutionary biology which is focused on living systems not some mythical dead ancestors.

 

[VirOptimus]

It concerns me very little how many professing Christians sell out to Darwinism. That's not my problem. Unlike you I have an interest in evolutionary biology which is focused on living systems not some mythical dead ancestors.

Sell out?

Like accepting physical reality?