Prove it or remove it challenge

[FutureAndAHope]

I just had a read of the dolphin evolution again you said it was a land animal then went back to the sea. Are you for real... Can you imagine a fully developed land animal able to hunt and live on land ... For no reason ... Sits around in the water long enough to be come a fish ... And you think the story of Jonah is a lie. All this reasoning from three skulls.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Ok so dogs and wolves are similar .. But interbreeding is not evolution, dogs interbreed but they always remain a dog. They don't grow new limbs ... Lose limbs ... Nor become a fish. Like I said we have fossils of nearly all modern animals what would make you think there is anything missing in the fossil record. P.s.where is the evidence of your dolphin with legs... Becoming a fish...

 

[Jimmy D]

PROVE IT, OR REMOVE IT CHALLENGE

My son has just started his first year of primary school, which is a good thing and a bad thing. Good in that he will be learning how to read, count all those good things. Bad in the fact that for the next 13 years he will be indoctrinated into the theory of evolution. A choice over which I have no power. So I don't plan to remain silent, I plan to challenge the government to either "prove or remove" evolutionary teaching.

So here is my challenge to all my evolutionist friends, and other interested parties. Scientific jargon makes it impossible for the average man to understand if evolution is true or false. We don't understand RNA, DNA, etc, so we have to remain silent and trust others. But there is one way that the average man CAN fight back, and that is by using the fossil record. We can all understand and SEE fossils. We see fossils of dinosaurs, horses, birds, so from the very beginning of creation until now we have a record of animals that have lived. So really what should we expect to see in the fossil record, we should expect to see changes between species, wild and dramatic changes, partially developed wings on lizards, something turning into a monkey. But the real truth is we don’t see any of those things happening. We only see different sized monkeys being called our ancestors, or different sized horses being said to have evolved. But think of Dogs (alive today) there a big dogs called Great Danes, and small, dogs, even tiny ones. If all put in a row from small to big they would look like what we have been told is evolution.

So my challenge to you is this, before I contact our government, tell me can you PROVE evolution using the fossil record, the only thing we can all understand and see. The only thing a court of normal citizens could determine using reasoning of the average man, without being bamboozled by science talk. My challenge is don’t give me a list of text names of supposed fossils, I want to see pictures, for if evolution is true there must be millions of them out there, and surely scientists want us to see them; we have thousands of species, supposedly all evolved. Can you find them? If you can’t provide me with proof from the only historical record we have, then you have been taught a lie, evolution never occurred.

You don't understand it but it's wrong? What is the point of anyone going to the trouble of trying to convince you? The arrogance of Creationists who are almost completely ignorant on a topic but still think they know better than the people who've dedicated their lives to studying it never ceases to amaze me.

Do you not feel your son is intelligent enough make up his own mind after being educated on the subject? I suspect you're more worried that when he's furnished with the facts that he'll be able to see just how foolish your ideas are.

 

[florida2]

I just had a read of the dolphin evolution again you said it was a land animal then went back to the sea. Are you for real... Can you imagine a fully developed land animal able to hunt and live on land ... For no reason ... Sits around in the water long enough to be come a fish ... And you think the story of Jonah is a lie. All this reasoning from three skulls.

Which is precisely why that isn't what is being said. Evolution happens over vast periods of time to populations, not individuals. Such a transition from land to water wouldn't have been complete in one generation, like the transition from sea to land animals.

You seem to be obsessed with focusing on one or two very specific examples whilst not looking at the bigger story of evidence for evolution. The fossil record that we have discovered so far isn't the best evidence for evolution - genetics is. Due to the rarity of fossilisation and the very small number of people searching for them in a very small number of places it isn't surprising that we don't have fossils for every single species. Heck, there are probably millions of species which don't have a single fossil which has survived to the present day. Genetics, on the other hand, is a much better record.

In the nicest way possible, it's clear you don't know much about evolution or science in general. If you want to genuinely learn more than there are plenty of people on here and resources to help you. If you just want to shout 'I don't understand it therefore it's false' then I will politely say goodbye.

PS - dolphins aren't fish.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Hi jimmy I did not ask for your assessment of my mental state I asked for proof now provide it.

 

[Nithavela]

I just had a read of the dolphin evolution again you said it was a land animal then went back to the sea. Are you for real... Can you imagine a fully developed land animal able to hunt and live on land ... For no reason ... Sits around in the water long enough to be come a fish ... And you think the story of Jonah is a lie. All this reasoning from three skulls.

Yeah, why would a land animal have anything to do with water?

Eaten any fish lately?

 

[Nithavela]

Hi jimmy I did not ask for your assessment of my mental state I asked for proof now provide it.

If the proof that you request would really exist, people who understand anything about evolution would be forced to abandon evolution in favour of magic.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Florida2 you sAy fossilisation is rare not it is not we have fossils of most modern land animals that would suggest for every generation we should have fossils. You can run away from the facts to your supposedly secure genetics, but so far I have had people here quoting genetic prof of evolution which has since been discredited.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hi DogmaHunter,
I enjoyed your post. Our metaphysics are different (I'm a theistic evolutionist) but I think our respect for science is on a par. (Your knowledge of it is probably far greater than mine). You're a software engineer. How do you know so much about evolution? Hobby?

Thanks

I find "high level" biology (as opposed to 'micro-biology') to be an extremely fascinating subject. When we go on vacation in the summer, while my other half is baking in the sun, I'll be in a beach chair reading books on the subject. I enjoy the works of Richard Dawkins a lot (The Greatest Show on Earth and The Ancestor's Tale being my 2 favorites).

I also find it extremely fascinating to learn about what the evolutionary history of certain traits and "default behaviours" are. For example, I have a 4-month old son. Humans go through a series of fascinating "stages" and I love to know / learn what these stages represent from an evolutionary perspective.

Seemingly unimportant features of the human body and psychology, actually have fascinating evolutionary histories. Like goose bumps for example. There's a direct relation between these bumps and our ancient ancestors who were still covered in hair.

Also, in context of software engineering, I've done some work in genetic algorithms, which are directly related to the mechanics of biological evolution.

Incredibly interesting algorithm that is commonly used as a search heuristic / optimisation module. It's very efficient at solving certain types of design problems. For example, Boeing has used such algorithms to optimise the design of fluid distribution systems in some of their airplanes.

It goes without saying that you can't work with genetic algorithms if you don't have some basic understanding of the underlying mechanisms.

Here's a simplistic, yet fun, example: http://boxcar2d.com/
It takes random polygon shapes with random turrets and wheels and evolves it into highly efficient "cars". Leave your browser open for some time and see the result.

 

[[serious]]

I just had a read of the dolphin evolution again you said it was a land animal then went back to the sea. Are you for real... Can you imagine a fully developed land animal able to hunt and live on land ... For no reason ... Sits around in the water long enough to be come a fish ... And you think the story of Jonah is a lie. All this reasoning from three skulls.

I can certainly imagine an animal that is perfectly functional on land but spends much of it's time in water. The hippo. I can imagine an animal that is equally comfortable on land and in the water, otters. How about an animal that is better in the water but still functions on land? Seals and walruses. We can see a whole range of aquatic transitions right now, why would we doubt that such transitions are possible?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

If the proof that you request would really exist

Yeah, why would a land animal have anything to do with water?.

Eaten any fish lately?

Go eat fish for your whole life and tell me how it goes growing gills.

 

[Nithavela]

Go eat fish for your whole life and tell me how it goes growing gills.

You don't even know that wales don't have gills and still breathe through lungs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ok I was asked what fossil type I am looking for ... I am not after a type ... I am after genuine evidence of the change

But how would you recognise such a fossil, if you can't even describe what features it would have to have for it to qualify as "genuine evidence"?

It sounds more and more like no fossil would ever convince you. It sounds more and more like you aren't even willing to listen.

If you can't even describe what kind of fossil would qualify as evidence, then what is the point of this "challenge"?

Clearly, to qualify as "evidence", it would have to meet certain criteria. I'm asking you what these criteria are. If you can't tell me.... then, again: what is the point of this "challenge"?

... There as I have stated are fossils of dinosaurs... And almost every currently living kind of animal ... WhT there is not is no strong evidence of change ... You supplied a handful of fossils ...

And they exhibit change. I gave you depictions (and names + ages) of fossils that represent the ancestral line of dolphines, where you can clearly see how, through time, the nostrils are moving from the front of the face (where they are typically found in land animals) to the top of the skull, where they are presently found in dolphins.

This clearly depicts the changes that the lineage went through from the original land animal to the current dolphin we know and love today.

So, I take it that this does not meet the criteria you have in your head but apparantly aren't willing to share.

All that is left for me at this point is to ask you what these mysterious criteria are.
But you aren't willing to share them.... My guess is that you don't want to share them, because in reality, you have no such criteria.

This tells me that you aren't planning on accepting ANY fossil as evidence for evolution. Which would mean that your "challenge" is dishonest.

So, I'll ask again: describe what kind / type of features a fossil would have to have in order for you to accept it as evidence of evolution.

If you can't answer that request, then your challenge is void. And dishonest. Because at that point, you have decided in advance that you won't accept any fossil as evidence. Not even crockoducks.

That is all the evidence on the transitional fossil page ... The sum total of changes ... Yet it does not show transition to modern species

I'll ask again: what, to you, would look like a "transition to modern species"?
What features must a fossil have in order for you to accept it as a "transitional" fossil?

If you can't answer this question- then what are you asking for, really?

... Yet we have fossils of all modern species .. So why are there no intermediate fossils. They never existed.

I just gave you examples of transitional fossils.

Several skulls of the dolphine lineage where the nostrils move further back, the younger the fossils are.

So, why do those not qualify as transitional fossils depicting the changes from a land animal with nostrils in the typical place, to a sea mammal with the nostrils on top of the skull?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

If the proof that you request would really exist, people who understand anything about evolution would be forced to abandon evolution in favour of magic.

Maybe magic is what you need, I have had some of it, not magic but God-gic God has done plenty of stuff for me read of a few recent miracles at http://www.everybodymatters.com

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ok here is what I want you asked me what evidence would I like regarding fossils. Pick two modern animals and trace from the Big Bang to now their transition

From "the big bang"?
What are you smoking, dude?

I'll just pretend you didn't say that.

And 2 "modern animals"? Are you know pretending that modern animals decent from eachother?

See, this is why I told you to first educate yourself on the subject. It is becoming more and more clear that you have no clue what evolution theory is all about.

If you continue bathing in this ignorance and categorically refuse to get educated on the subject, then you would recognise evidence for it if it came up and slapped you in the face.

This thread is a complete waste of time.

... No lizards allowed as all your fossils look like modern day lizards.

Dolphins and its mammal ancestors are not lizards.
Humans and its primate ancestors are not lizards.
Again: what are you smoking?

 

[Nithavela]

Maybe magic is what you need, I have had some of it, not magic but God-gic God has done plenty of stuff for me read of a few recent miracles at http://www.everybodymatters.com

Why should I believe anything from someone as obviously misinformed as yours truly?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Dogma hunter ... Three sculls prove little. In isolation they prove nothing. You need to have a continual persistent record of change. Like I said the web should be littered with examples of change .. I know you are trying ... But the transitional fossil page provided to me had less than 50 examples on it and these were broken into sub categories you have to admit 50 disjointed only partially related examples does not make a strong point. Have a look at what was provided. It is not evidence for evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I know life supposedly did not start at the Big Bang but you get what I mean .... Also as for the dolphin evolution provided in an earlier post ... Are they the only fossils?

No, they are not the only fossils. Do you realise that there are hundreds of thousands, millions, of fossils in museums all over the world? And a whole bunch more in universities and research facilities?

Or did creationists make you believe that there are only a handfull of them?

Sure the spout moves ... But the rest of the features are different

Yes. Because they evolve. It's not just the nostrils that moved. The creature went from a land animal to an aquatic animal. Obviously, more changes are going to occur then just the nose.

But here you go then....
This illustrates nicely that you do not plan on accepting any fossil - no matter which is posted.

You want to see "change" in the record and that is exactly what I posted. And then you complain that the fossils show differences. Well...derp. If there are changes, then there are going to be differences. Who would have thought, ey?

To me they look like three extinct kinds of dolphin, each one different from the other.

And they are different because they changed through evolution. DERP

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Hi dogma hunter you misunderstand my challenge. I mean I want you to show me from the cellular level to modern day beast the continual change that occurred over time.

 

[The Cadet]

So I don't plan to remain silent, I plan to challenge the government to either "prove or remove" evolutionary teaching.

Scientific jargon makes it impossible for the average man to understand if evolution is true or false. We don't understand RNA, DNA, etc, so we have to remain silent and trust others.

...Are you serious? On one hand, you state clearly that you don't understand things like RNA and DNA, showing that you clearly know very little about biology and evolution, and on the other you expect others to "prove" evolution to you? I'm sorry, but if you're not willing to put in the work to understand even the basics, then what's the point? You're already willing to make the arrogant assertion that the experts are wrong, yet clearly lack any expertise yourself - not just in genetics, but also in paleontology and comparative anatomy, as you have failed to understand every example so kindly provided by the other posters here.