proving evolution as just a "theory"

[tas8831]

so this fan can evolve naturally?

12V 2 Pin 40mm Computer Cooler Cooling Fan PC Black Brushless Chassis IDE Fan

Please stop trying to conflate human design and 'deity' magic and especially STOP trying to use analogies of human activity as evidence for the deity magic that you are pushing. it is dishonest and annoying.

 

[tas8831]

here it again:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...ficial-bacterial-flagellum-that-consists-of-a

Are you claiming that this flagellum is found in bacteria?

so a motor is evidence for design or not?

A human-designed motor is evidence for human design, obviously.

Please stop with the dishonest and disingenuous attempt to use an analogy as evidence for your fantasies.

Also - odd that you did not address your implications for the recurrent laryngeal nerve - you merely engaged in misdirection.

 

[tas8831]

I awaited my result for my Engineering exam, as the teacher gave them out and announced them before the class. I got 59 out of 60, one other student spoke out loud as the teacher and other students heard him saying, "he must got one mark less because he spelled his name wrong"

I can accept that!

You make frequent spelling errors. Not typos. I find it funny that many creationists that try to portray themselves as educated and clever have a hard time spelling common words.

Not as funny as the same folks putting forth what they believe to be witty assertions premised on their beliefs that the bible is true as counters to actual evidence, but still funny.

 

[tas8831]

not according to those scientists:

https://phys.org/news/2009-06-humans-orangutans-chimps.html

"Of these features, the analysis found that humans shared 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans, compared to only two features with chimpanzees, seven with gorillas, and seven with all three apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans). Gorillas and chimpanzees shared 11 unique characteristics."

and they aren't creationists...

No, but they act like them.

Schwartz has this pet belief that it is orangs that are more closely related to humans than chimps, and the more evidence accumulates undermining his belief, the more he digs in.

That paper is not a very good one - they used a rather limited and cherry-picked data set to do their analysis (they used things like whether or not adult males have mustaches - very reminiscent of a creationist paper that used criteria like whether or not monogamous pair bonds were formed and type of dwelling they live in). They dismissed a paper in which about 3 times as much morphological data were used. And, like creationists, Grehan made the rounds on blogs and websites that criticized the paper, insulting people for not bowing down to Schwartz's superior intellect (in effect) and he even went so far as to accuse one of the authors of the paper using much more data than they did of fraud.

Of course, you fail on 2 points -

Even if Schwartz is correct, it STILL supports common ancestry, and a close common ancestry of the hominoid primates and
You ignore the many, many more papers using more and more evidence that draw different conclusions.

But at least you aren't using your usual disingenuous analogies, so there is that.

i also noticed that you ignored again my simple question about the motor. wonder why...

Oh.... Never mind.

 

[sfs]

not according to those scientists:

https://phys.org/news/2009-06-humans-orangutans-chimps.html

"Of these features, the analysis found that humans shared 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans, compared to only two features with chimpanzees, seven with gorillas, and seven with all three apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans). Gorillas and chimpanzees shared 11 unique characteristics."

and they aren't creationists...

No, but they are crackpots.

1) can you provide any evidence for this claim?

I can't find the specific cases I've seen in the past of older creationist writings making this claim, but see here for a contemporary creationist argument. Note that creationists continue to attack the evidence for chromosomal fusion, as here and here. These creationists certainly don't think chromosome fusion is a prediction of creationism.

2) i dont care what some creationists argue for. i gave you a simple explanation under the creation model.

I have never said that creationism can't explain the evidence for chromosome fusion. I said creationism didn't predict that evidence would appear for fusion. You said creationism did predict it. You have offered no evidence to support that claim.

i also noticed that you ignored again my simple question about the motor. wonder why...

I can't explain why you noticed something that didn't happen. I already answered your question. The existence of "motors" in cells is not evidence for design, and the existence of human-designed motors is not evidence that all "motors" were designed. Your claim lacks any logical substance.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sure, you will find the product of hybridisation in vast majority of organisms which are NOT species, yet what is missing?

The smoking gun, that is the infinite transmutated species themselves. If they can find a vast majority of organisms which are small, why can they not find the larger transmutated species fossils. Something smells fishy to me my friend.

-_- if you are talking about transitional fossils with, say, amphibian and fish traits, there are plenty.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Hybridisation is not a process that happens overnight in the tug of war for one species to prevail over another.

Uh, what? You say that as if all organisms on this planet aim to entirely dominate it at the exclusion of all others. The symbiosis of nature demands otherwise.

In this regard there would be many failed attempts that would lead to death, as in the case of neomorphs and eventually you would have gradual xenomorphing occuring where a species is seen to be winning out over a period of millions of millions of years.

Ok, now you are straight up suggesting that eventually just 1 species would dominate the entire planet if given enough time. This simply isn't true, because all organisms don't share the exact same niche. An animal that eats the plant isn't seeking to exterminate it, and doing so would be to the detriment of that animal (as it would lose a food source).

In the case of sea based becoming land based, we would expect numerous and I mean numerous morphing to occur because the inclination for the sea based is to copy its parent and yet the force of reckoning is the land based which begins a process of transmutation in the cross contamination of one species over another, until the land based wins out. It could be vice versa also.

-_- or the lineages could split, one retaining its niche in the sea and the other moving on to land.

There is no rule of a chemical property of molecules demanding consistency, when there is hybridisation occurring from one species to another.

I meant that DNA's chemical properties demand it be a specific width by height ratio, due to the chemical bonds of the atoms in it. Chemical bond properties are consistent throughout nature. Hybridization doesn't change the fact that it's the same 4 nucleic acids in DNA every time.

The pattern in the chaotic changing process are anything but consistent, they would be an unstable state, a tug of war, which would give evidence to countless patterns throughout the process. It is not about starting point and destination in an evolutionary process, rather it is about how you get there and the paths should be infinite in number and need to be proven by the infinite number of patterns connecting one to another. It would be like a murder mystery, because one species has just murdered another through dominance.

There are tons of evolutionary dead ends in the fossil record, so I have no idea what your contention is. I have run out of time, and will reply to the rest later.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Orangisms cannot be defined as species, because they are yet to take form and they do not have intellegence.

Ok, time for part 2, and it looks like this part is going to be more... interesting. First off, this claim makes absolutely no sense, since what qualifies as a species has nothing to do with intelligence whatsoever, and is a part of taxonomy intended for all living things on this planet.

The machinery in organisms are fully automated and not conscious and it would be no different to an engineering plant consisting of machinery.

Well, there are differences in the mechanisms by which cells work, but you are right, we don't control the functions of individual cells in our bodies. Actually, even humans don't consciously control most body processes.

You would still need intellegence and a form to define what the species is. Therefore Evolutionists use wrong defintion of terms like organisms are species and adaptations are evolution.

I'm not sure if you understand what the word "species" means... or how naming things works. A waterfall has no thoughts, but we do have a name for it. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up intelligence. Is it because we humans need to be "intelligent" in order to have taxonomy in the first place? That's a silly point of contention, considering there's no reason we should restrict ourselves only to categorizing living things which we consider to be intelligent.

I fully am aware that the destined lifeform will still have a common ancestry.

DESTINED life form? That's not correct, evolution doesn't have a set path with set outcomes. No species currently alive was guaranteed to come into existence.

This is not what is being contended, rather the processes leading up to the intellegent lifeform , please highlight FORM, is anything but shared, it would be a transitioning process which should by rights highlight something else.

From my perspective, intelligence is no different from any other trait, so asserting that it's special enough to warrant an entirely distinct origin from all other traits an organism can have is rather silly to me. Also, there are plenty of transitional fossils for it, with various brain sizes.

That something else has not been given into evidence by Evolutionists. This something else would be so numerous, if we take evolution theory at its word that these failed DNA processes would yield variations straight out of science fiction movies, especially when they are happening slowly over millions of millions of years.

You mean like this?

or this?

How about this?

Very strange organisms have lived on this planet, and currently do live on this planet. How "alien" they appear to you is a matter of familiarity vs unfamiliarity. I actually quite enjoy the more unfamiliar life forms that have existed on this planet because I find their appearance so strange. I mean, look at this thing

This is a living organism, so weird. In any case, evolution isn't suddenly invalid because you think that the life on this planet isn't "weird enough".

 

[rjs330]

Assumptions! POOF!

{smoke clears}

Oh look, the evidence remains and remains unaddressed.

Yes look at all the assumptions! It's quite amazing really. Just reading the post about mammals and their evolution. It's all one big assumption that this or that happened. Yet there actually is no evidence that what they claimed happened really did. They believe it did, they assume it did, they suppose it did, but there remains no real evidence that it actually did. Evolution loves to POOF, as you say, magical facts based upon no testing, no observation and no ability to reproduce the results.

 

[rjs330]

-_- if you are talking about transitional fossils with, say, amphibian and fish traits, there are plenty.

And how do you know it's a transitional fossil? You and the others are guessing it is because you believe it is. Yet you have no evidence of it transitioning from something specific into something specific. It's guesswork based upon an assumption.

 

[pitabread]

Yet you have no evidence of it transitioning from something specific into something specific.

That's not how transitional fossils are defined.

Transitional fossils are merely those which contain intermediary characteristics between different taxa.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution loves to POOF, as you say, magical facts based upon no testing, no observation and no ability to reproduce the results.

Once again you demonstrate little understanding of the scientific method.

You can keep claiming that evolution is not testable, that there is no evidence, that's all a fabrication. At the end of that, it still remains a foundational part of modern biology, has various lines of evidence to support it (from lab experiments to direct observations of evolutionary change in nature), is an applied science, and will continue to be taught and used by biologists.

None of that changes based on whether or not you accept it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

And how do you know it's a transitional fossil? You and the others are guessing it is because you believe it is.

Transitional fossils are any fossil with intermediate traits between two groups. I think you have made the common misunderstanding of assuming that this also means that they are treated as direct ancestors to other organisms, when this simply isn't the case.

Yet you have no evidence of it transitioning from something specific into something specific. It's guesswork based upon an assumption.

Yeah, you definitely think transitional fossils are supposed to be direct ancestors of organisms. What they actually are is a demonstration of concept; that these intermediate organisms could and did exist. Not only that, but we can even predict what rock layers fossils with specific traits will have based on evolutionary models and timescales.

But, to be blunt, why do you even care about fossils? They aren't even close to being the strongest evidence for evolution, you want genetics for that.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Evolution loves to POOF, as you say, magical facts based upon no testing, no observation and no ability to reproduce the results.

Want me to do an evolution test for you? They are so easy, I could have the desired results by the end of the year. That is, as long as you don't have a problem with the test subjects being bacteria. Would you like them to form colonies of a specific color? Perhaps digest something they didn't previously digest? Just not anything like Lysol, I'd rather not have bacteria that resist the chemical agents I use for sterilization. Oh, perhaps resistance to a poison? Heck, I could even do a combo, and have an original population that forms red colonies diverge into two different populations, one that forms yellow colonies, and the other which can digest a sugar the original could not.

 

[pitabread]

Transitional fossils are any fossil with intermediate traits between two groups. I think you have made the common misunderstanding of assuming that this also means that they are treated as direct ancestors to other organisms, when this simply isn't the case.

This is a common misconception, but I also think it's a deliberate tactic among creationists so they can discount evidence they don't want to acknowledge. I've even seen creationists go so far as to claim that unless a specific fossil organism is proven to have produced offspring, then they're disqualified as 'transitionals'.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

if so why so many scientists (including biologists) reject evolution?

They don't. Only a very few, and those appear to be persuaded against evolution because of their religion instead of the science.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Hey larnievc.

Could you please supply the reference or a link to the mammal found in cambrian strata?

Cheers

There weren't any. Its an example of something that, if it were found, would upend our understanding of evolution. It hasn't been found and it will never be found.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Actually, the OP spoke of convincing her friend of the truth of the christian way. Somehow, the OP is convinced that the ToE is a stumbling block for this christian way.

Evolution is a stumbling block to some versions of Christianity, and is perfectly fine with other versions of Christianity. So whether or not evolution is true is a guide as to which versions of Christianity are credible.

Evidence matters.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Th biggest hurdle is to accept that 'science' as we get it pushed down our throats, in regard to the origins of our reality, is naturalistic propaganda.
This is not what science is supposed to be, it is not science.

Look, scientists like to share what they know and educators think sharing science is important, and just because you think that makes it propaganda is not going to cut it around here.

Science has 'mutated' into an opinionating authority just like religion used to be.
It is in fact the 'religion of naturalism' (so to speak) that is pushed down our throats under the GUISE of science.

Not really. Naturalism has to be real. . . natural things exist, don't they? So its perfectly reasonable to study natural things, in spite of how you don't like them. And you can have religion as well, but religion that disputes what what we know about natural things is perhaps unwise.

They just assume and have you believe that God didn't have anything to do with it.

You just don't like having your opinions about nature contradicted. Sorry . . . saying evolution is true is NOT REALLY saying there is no God.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Th biggest hurdle is to accept that 'science' as we get it pushed down our throats, in regard to the origins of our reality, is naturalistic propaganda.

-_- oh yes, so intrusive, so much that I didn't even get exposed to evolution in school until 8th grade, and it was an optional part of the course. Heck, I never was exposed to it in depth until college. And while public schools up to high school can't proselytize, people really take it to the next level when it comes to college campuses. I own over a dozen small Psalms books from the start of this school year alone, as well as a pocket book of John. I've taken up a habit of collecting them; any time someone offers me one, I take it home. Any time I see one left out for anyone to grab in a hallway or bathroom, I take it.