• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

proving evolution as just a "theory"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
More dishonesty concerning what this pattern is and means.
hint: it has nothing to do with the "base materials", and everything with what would inevitably emerge from an evolutionary system with a common root.
Or just what would emerge if everything shared the same building blocks. Similarity and differences. It's like dogs, they all share the same common ancestor, yet have inevitable variation, and not from mutation or evolution. Simply interbreeding specific traits. But they one and all are still dogs. And without mans interference you would only see just a few different types, not hundreds. Thats your evolution in speed up time, which is not evolution at all.

You just cant tell which fossil mated with which fossil from those bones....
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
That would falsify evolution.
Consider it falsified then, since bacteria supposedly evolved into fish, which eventually evolved into man..... Unless you are saying you believe we are bacteria or fish?
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Do we have a creature that we can show evolved a forelimb into a feathered wing?
Just answer the question first; yes or no? Otherwise I suspect your goalpost will move.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Or just what would emerge if everything shared the same building blocks.

Not if they were created independently from one another.
But if they share ancestry and evolved gradually over time, it couldn't be any other pattern then the one we observe.

Similarity and differences. It's like dogs, they all share the same common ancestor, yet have inevitable variation, and not from mutation or evolution. Simply interbreeding specific traits.

Breeding for traits = artificial selection = application of the evolutionary process.

It's also how we breed both broccoli and brussel sprouts from the same wild gabbage plant.

But they one and all are still dogs.

Off course. Descendends of canines will always remain canines. Dogs don't produce cats. They produce more dogs (and sub-species thereof, eventually)

And without mans interference you would only see just a few different types, not hundreds.

Indeed, because in natural selection, only survivability and reproduction counts.
Not "fluffyness" or "cuteness" or "hardest bite" or "longest tail" or "best drugs sniffer".

Most of the breeds of dogs actually wouldn't survive in the wild at all. Some of them are even no longer capable of natural reproduction, because the evolutionary effects of the artificial selection simply changed their anatomy so much that they literally became physically incapable of reproducing.

Again a nice example of why such species would not evolve in the wild. They require human assistance and care to survive.

Thats your evolution in speed up time, which is not evolution at all.

The only difference are the selection parameters, which aren't of the "natural" kind in breeding programs.

You just cant tell which fossil mated with which fossil from those bones....

Nore do you have to.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
You totally misunderstand what I said. It is the poster that I responded to that claimed evolution was not random, I simply pointed out the error in that belief. If something proceeds by random events, then it itself is random.
That's what I get for letting myself be impressed by you. But I can explain very simply how you are incorrect, given that natural selection isn't random.

Let's say I have 500 coins, one side saying tails, and the other saying heads. I proceed to flip the coins. For those that land on heads, they have a trait that isn't favorable to survival, so for the generations that follow in this example, 90% of the coins with heads "die", and are removed from this example game. Every generation, 60% of the tails will die, since they don't have the unfavorable trait that the heads coins do, but that doesn't make them death proof. Now, after the first generation, which was flipped, the next generations are the addition of a coin for each one on the field, corresponding to an existing coin with the same sides as the coins from the preceding generation. So, if there is currently 30 tails, that's how many extra tails would be added. So, I play this game for a bit, and eventually, tails will dominate. Was this random? Of course not, because heads coins were removed from the population a lot more than tails coins were. It didn't matter that which side the coins had in the first "generation" was random, what persisted the best was not, and it reflects in future populations.

No, skin tones are the result of dominant and recessive genes.
Not quite, if this was true, then the kids would all have nearly the same skin tone as one of their parents... but they have an intermediate one. The curly hair, on the other hand, is in the dominant/recessive gene pattern.
Multiracial.jpg


As are eyes colors, hair colors..... But when you get something right, I'll defend you. And dont defend me for something I clearly never said, you simply confused my post.
My bad on that.

The poster said evolution was not random. I pointed out the error in the belief than random events being the cause, mean non randomness.....
And since I disagree with you, I address that in this post.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Nothing has been added to the Bible in 3500 years

Indeed. It's not a good thing.
Well, not if you are trying to use it as a science textbook, anyway.

and with all the modern science we have people that still can not figure out the message GOD has for them and how HE wants them to apply that message to their lives today.

Yeah... what's wrong with all those people?
Don't they realise that Allah is god and Mohammed the final messenger?
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
What business is that of yours?

You're on a public forum posting in a public thread.

It's my business because I just made it mine, in this public sphere and as a participant in the thread.

If you don't want people to reply to your public posts on a public forum, then don't post.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
When is a T-rex not a T-rex? When it's Tyrannosaurus bataar.

Tyrannosaurus is the type genus of the superfamily Tyrannosauroidea, the family Tyrannosauridae, and the subfamily Tyrannosaurinae; in other words it is the standard by which paleontologists decide whether to include other species in the same group. Other members of the tyrannosaurine subfamily include the North American Daspletosaurus and the Asian Tarbosaurus,[66][67] both of which have occasionally been synonymized with Tyrannosaurus.[29][page needed] Tyrannosaurids were once commonly thought to be descendants of earlier large theropods such as megalosaurs and carnosaurs, although more recently they were reclassified with the generally smaller coelurosaurs.[28]



Diagram showing the differences between a generalized Tarbosaurus (A) and Tyrannosaurus (B) skull
In 1955, Soviet paleontologist Evgeny Maleev named a new species, Tyrannosaurus bataar, from Mongolia.[68] By 1965, this species had been renamed Tarbosaurus bataar.[69] Despite the renaming, many phylogenetic analyses have found Tarbosaurus bataar to be the sister taxon of Tyrannosaurus rex,[67] and it has often been considered an Asian species of Tyrannosaurus.[28][70][71] A recent redescription of the skull of Tarbosaurus bataar has shown that it was much narrower than that of Tyrannosaurus rex and that during a bite, the distribution of stress in the skull would have been very different, closer to that of Alioramus, another Asian tyrannosaur.[72] A related cladistic analysis found that Alioramus, not Tyrannosaurus, was the sister taxon of Tarbosaurus, which, if true, would suggest that Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus should remain separate.[66] The discovery and description of Qianzhousaurus would later disprove this and revealed that Alioramus belonged to the clade Alioramini.[73][74] The discovery of the tyrannosaurid Lythronax further indicates that Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus are closely related, forming a clade with fellow Asian tyrannosaurid Zhuchengtyrannus, with Lythronax being their sister taxon.[75][76] A further study from 2016 by Steve Brusatte, Thomas Carr et al., also indicates Tyrannosaurus may have been an immigrant from Asia, as well as a possible descendent of Tarbosaurus. The study further indicates the possibility that Tyrannosaurus may have driven other tyrannosaurids that were native to North America extinct through competition.[77] Other finds in 2006 indicate giant tyrannosaurs may have been present in North America as early as 75 million years ago. Whether or not this specimen belongs to Tyrannosaurus rex, a new species of Tyrannosaurus, or a new genus entirely is still unknown.[78]

LOL.

Thats my point. You are unable to differentiate between members of the same species, and simply subspecies within that species. Oh I agree they are all the same Kind. I say one mated with another and a different one came into existence. You ignore the actual empirical observation and believe one evolved into another. Even if no transitory ones exist, and all are fully formed from the first one found to the last one found.....


Good to see that scientists aren't dogmatic in what they accept.
You mean your excuse for letting them ignore the scientific definitions?


What specifically is wrong with the papers written about coelacanth's?
Every one of them was wrong.....


No one disputes that an "african and asian make afro-asian". What is disputed is where you think african and asian came from in the first place.
Oh I say just as we observe the Afro-Asian come about. Just as we observe the Chinook come about. Its you that's refusing to make your theory follow empirical evidence...


If I meant that I would have typed it.

Why do you think it doesn't have predecessors? Surely they would have been lobe finned fish, anatomically they're very similar aren't they?

I actually wondered how would you account for the fact that theory of evolution predicted that it would be found in a specific geographical region within a specific geological time frame? Was it coincidence? luck?

Would prefer to believe that they were specially created during the Devonian period, at a very specific time just before the emergence of land based tetrapods?
Oh, you meant the lack of any predecessors anywhere, my bad.

Why wouldnt it be found after fish? Water creatures were created before crawling things..... crawling things before dinosaurs. I fail to see how this fact points to evolution being your lack of transitional forms?


LOL, I'm starting to think that you use the fact that you don't like the taxonomic classifaction system as an exuse to ignore anything you don't agree with.

200 years of scientific enquiry dissmissed!
Oh I agree every single one of them is found fully formed from the oldest to the youngest one found. 200 years of evolutionary PR you mean. Its not the facts that are in dispute, but the arbitrary classification of the same Kind as separate species, by the same people that watch finches interbreed before their eyes, yet cant follow the definitions they wrote. That's what is dismissed, the PR hype. Its you that dismiss the fact that every one is fully formed, that just like dogs all those T=Rex are merely different breeds or subspecies, not separate species....



Because you seem to be claiming that the races began at the end points (geographically - africa and asia in this example) and met in the middle. I'm saying that if evolution is a fact they would have a start point and radiate outwards with a gradual change in appearance from Africa to Asia.
No, where they left the Ark and dispersed, we agree. I'm contending your mutations cant even get pas the racial border. That only one observational empirical way has been shown to do so. The way you consistently ignore, instead claiming mutations which have never once shown even a tendency to do so.


Please don't say this to me again. I have a mixed race daughter, I know how it works.
Then quit ignoring it and pretending it happened by mutation far, far in the past since you know how it works. Dont let the truth offend you, its just the facts. And dont try to change this into a racial discussion. Its not my fault they want to call the races races instead of subpecies, like they should by their own definition.


I don't know, it's your hypothetical. The classification of dogs doesn't seem to confuse anyone apart from you.
Except you who cant seem to then apply that lesson to the fossil record........
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
30,680
15,134
Seattle
✟1,170,164.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
But you missed the point. We both agree it is a copy the point missed is of "what already existed" in the genome.

I'm pretty sure that you don't know "what already existed" in the genome is supposed to mean. Especially since the last time you started going on about new nucleotide bases for some reason and never explained why that was relevant.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Theistic Evolution. Although people like Francis Collins like to coin his own terms so that his beliefs are not associated with people he does not agree with.

Francis collins follows the scientific evidence.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
LOL. What is the scientific theory of creation?
Whats the scientific theory of evolution? Gradualism? Lamarckism? Sudden mutation? Darwinism? Neo-Darwinism? You tell me which one is the absolute correct one and Ill tell you which creation theory is absolutely correct. Deal? But you must stick to that one single theory for all of your arguments.
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Except the logical progression of the fossil record, with no exceptions
.

incorrect:

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/nature08623.html

"Here we present well-preserved and securely dated tetrapod tracks from Polish marine tidal flat sediments of early Middle Devonian (Eifelian stage) age that are approximately 18 million years older than the earliest tetrapod body fossils and 10 million years earlier than the oldest elpistostegids. They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record."
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Consider it falsified then, since bacteria supposedly evolved into fish,
Inaccurate; the current evolutionary timeline has bacteria and eukaryotic cells diverging before they had all of their associated cell type traits. So, no bacteria evolving into fish.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bugeyedcreepy
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I'm pretty sure that you don't know "what already existed" in the genome is supposed to mean. Especially since the last time you started going on about new nucleotide bases for some reason and never explained why that was relevant.
I'm pretty sure you don't know what it means, since you think copies in different orders didn't copy what already existed, just in a new order. You know, like what happens with dogs, or finches that are interbreeding? Oh my fault, finch variety is because of natural selection, not because they are interbreeding under their noses.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Inaccurate; the current evolutionary timeline has bacteria and eukaryotic cells diverging before they had all of their associated cell type traits. So, no bacteria evolving into fish.
Where did the eukaryotic cells come from? what did they diverge from?
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
incorrect:

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/nature08623.html

"Here we present well-preserved and securely dated tetrapod tracks from Polish marine tidal flat sediments of early Middle Devonian (Eifelian stage) age that are approximately 18 million years older than the earliest tetrapod body fossils and 10 million years earlier than the oldest elpistostegids. They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record."


It's called "learning" and "making progress".

There's nothing in there that poses a problem for evolution. It's not like they found a rabbit in pre-cambrian strata.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.