proving evolution as just a "theory"

[pitabread]

Life on earth is carbon based. Science says it does not have to be, they speculate it could be silicone based. What it could be does not matter, what matters is that life on earth is carbon based. As they say we are star stuff. Somewhere in the universe a Star had to die to create the carbon that we are made of.

Evolution does not speculate as to where the elements come from. Evolution does not speculate as to where the natural laws come from that regulates the whole process of evolution.

None of this answers what I was asking.

 

[HiEv]

I dont believe in evolution at all.

Ever hear of antibiotic resistant bacteria? They arose due to evolution (a change in the frequency of traits in a population). Evolution is not merely speciation.

If you don't believe the evidence in front of you, then I don't know what else to tell you.

I was commenting on the contradiction that evolution was claimed to not be random, yet proceeded because of random mutations.

It's not a contradiction because once a random mutation occurs, natural selection prefers beneficial mutations over harmful mutations. So while the occurrence of the mutation itself is fairly random, the process by which it does or doesn't spread in the population is mostly not random.

 

[HiEv]

Do we have a creature that we can show evolved a forelimb into a feathered wing?

You don't show evolution in a single creature, but across a number of related species over a period of time. So, if you mean, "Do we have fossils that show the evolution of the forelimb into the modern wing?" then the answer is yes:

 

[Justatruthseeker]

LOL. Do you realize that you're arguing, "All of the fossils which we've grouped together based on extreme similarity happen to be extremely similar"? And somehow you think this disproves evolution?

Together, you called baby and adults of the same exact species separate species, all to support your theory that speciation occurs. Your claimed based upon similarity fails since those babies and adults were almost exactly similar. I mean please, is that your best response?

I am saying if you cant even get babies and adults of the same species correct that are almost identical, what makes you assume they got all those subspecies they have classified as separate species correct?

Not only is it silly, but it's wrong. If you want to look for evolution of a species, you have to look outside of that species. For example, just as evolution predicted, we recently discovered a new species, Timurlengia euotica, which exists between the gap from the smaller tyrannosaurs to the larger later T. rex variety of tyrannosaur, which had much sharper senses than the smaller tyrannosaurs. T. euotica has the more advanced senses, similar to T. rex, but the size of the earlier species.

Yah, lets cut open its bones and see how that claim pans out...... Again, you proved my point, if its slightly different its a new species, without any consideration as to if its just a subspecies. Because the discoverer of a subspecies doesnt get their name written in the books....

The fact that we found fossils of such a clear transition between the two, in a time period between the two, just as evolution predicts, is itself evidence for evolution. If you're interested see:

New T. rex discovery proves evolution is actually true … again

And that is merely one example among many.

Yah, that's what they said about Draco_rex and Nanotyransosaurus. Until someone with the actual science of bone growth proved them wrong.....

Cite one.

The fact is, you can't. Even back as far as 1755, when Immanuel Kant speculated on the shape of our galaxy (and it turned out he was correct), even then he thought that nebulae might be separate galaxies themselves. This fact was demonstrated correct as early as 1917 by Heber Curtis.

At no point were there any "peer reviewed papers saying the Milky-Way was the entire universe."

If you have to make up lies to bolster your argument, then that's a pretty good indication of how bad your argument is.

Ignore history at your peril.

The Spiral Nebulae and the Great Debate | Astronomy 801: Planets, Stars, Galaxies, and the Universe

"In 1750 Thomas Wright, in his work An original theory or new hypothesis of the Universe, correctly speculated that the Milky Way might be a body of a huge number of stars held together by gravitational forces rotating about a Galactic Center, akin to the solar system but on a much larger scale. The resulting disk of stars can be seen as a band on the sky from our perspective inside the disk.[17] In a treatise in 1755, Immanuel Kant elaborated on Wright's idea about the structure of the Milky Way. At the time, the existence of other galaxies had not been discovered."

At the time all was thought to be contained in the Milky-Way.

Your lies wont change history.....

I honestly have no idea what you think you're arguing here.

Coelacanths exist. So what?

I don't think we ever heard about "the transitional coelacanth", and I don't even know what you think that means.

Coelacanths do somewhat resemble the early ancestors of tetrapods, but so what? They're a different branch. The Sarcopterygii split into the Crossopterygii and Rhipidistia, the former of which evolved into coelacanths, the latter of which evolved into Tetrapodomorpha. Also, nothing about evolution says that coelacanths have to change or die out.

I'm truly baffled as to what you think the existence of coelacanths (dis)proves.

Because you dont even know the history of your own evolutionary theory.

All you ever read is what they say today. You fail to realize that for years the colecanth was touted to be the transitory example of water to land animals. You dont hear it today because the living one falsified it.

I always laugh when creationists say "fully formed", because it just demonstrates that they don't understand what evolution actually says. Evolution doesn't say that creatures will appear with "half a wing", to pull an example numerous creationists have actually argued. All animals will be "fully formed", all the parts will work. If they didn't, it likely wouldn't have survived to evolve further.

So now you want me to believe that the monkeys tail was fully formed? Or the modern eye? By fully formed I mean you see no transitional forms between one and the next, excepot those you incorrectly classify as transitional.

Also, it's appearance wasn't "sudden", it was gradually evolved over about 5 million years. That may be "sudden" in geological terms, but it's a perfectly reasonable amount of time which fits the evolutionary model.

Really? Show me the gradual in the Cambrian explosion? Or the gradual from one layer to the next?

And it most certainly had predecessors, such as Panderichthys and Eusthenopteron. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that it had no ancestors. Even if we didn't have fossils of some of its ancestors (which we do), you can't jump to the conclusion that they don't exist. Even without those ancestors, we can show genetic markers which support the conclusion that these species shared a common ancestor at this time, so this is a well supported conclusoin.

I am sorry, forgive me, I didnt realize you had DNA from dinosaurs that you could compare to those alive today to make such a claim of sharing markers......

Honestly, it's amazing how much wrongness you managed to fit into one single sentence.

As its amazing to see how much deception and lack of historical knowledge you can fit into yours. You forget I grew up during the stories of the colecanth and know exactly what was taught.

OK, let me ask you, how do you determine what is or isn't E. coli? One method is to determine if it can anaerobically metabolize citrate. If it can't, then it's more likely to be E. coli, because E. coli can't do that. In fact, testing for this Cit- phenotype is one way that's used to tell E. coli contamination apart from salmonella contamination, which instead has a Cit+ phenotype.

You shouldnt beliueve everything you are told by PR specialists. Do your research and you will find that E coli could always metabolize citrus. The only thing that changed was that abiklity was changed to dominance so it could metabolize it fully.

So, if E. coli evolved the ability to metabolize citrate anaerobically, is it still E. coli?

I thought you said earlier that dogs remain dogs, peas, peas and fruit flies fruit flies? I think you already answered that, but are just double-talking now so you can change your mind later if necessary. Since they still call it E coli, I guess it does mean its still E coli.

The E. coli long-term evolution experiment, which was done in an anaerobic environment in a medium with a lot of citrate (which was originally included to help killing penicillin in other experiments). Over tens of thousands of generations, the bacteria being studied evolved the heretofore nonexistent ability to metabolize citrate anaerobically.

But could always metabolize citrus. It simply adapted due to the fact it was given no other food source.

"The most striking adaptation reported so far is the evolution of aerobic growth on citrate, which is unusual in E. coli,"

Unusual, not non-existant.

"However, E. coli has a complete citric acid cycle, and therefore metabolizes citrate as an intermediate during aerobic growth on other substances, including glucose."

This is, by definition, evolution of that species. Something you deny exists.

So YOU say.
"Two distinct variants, S and L,"

Hmm, variants, can we all say subspecies?

Even your so called experts dont go as far as you.

"Phylogenetic analysis of clones of the two types isolated from different generations demonstrated that the S and L types belonged to distinct, co-existing lineages in the population, and might be undergoing incipient speciation."

And pigs misght fly too if they had wings.

Do you deny this evidence? And if one change can evolve, why can't other changes happen again later? And why can't all of those changes accumulate over many generations until it no longer resembles those earlier generations to categorize them together?

Because in every respect those E coli are the same except for one gene being expressed as a dominant gene.

The evidence that evolution can put one foot in front of the other is too overwhelming to deny, but if you can't deny that, then how can you deny that repeatedly putting one foot in front of another can take you a mile? I honestly don't get that.

Ahh, you mean you interpret a tiny change as meaning entire new species can arise, even when the authors clearly stated that this might be leading to speciation, but didnt show speciation was possible. I'd say that too if I was trying desparately to prove my theory when everything in life contradicts it.

I mean even if bacteria dont evolve it proves evolution, thats how desparate its become....

Scientists discover organism that hasn’t evolved in more than 2 billion years

 

[pitabread]

Scientists discover organism that hasn’t evolved in more than 2 billion years

One of the big things to remember though is that there is a discordance between changes between genotype and phenotype. Phenotypes can remain relatively fixed even if organisms undergo considerable genetic changes, and vise-versa.

Since we don't have 2 billion year old DNA to compare, we can't really see what is really happening under the hood.

From a phenotype POV though, if an organism is well adapted to its environment and that environment remains relatively constant, one wouldn't necessarily expect much phenotype-specific change.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Who is feeding you this nonsense? Where’d you get the idea that scientists, the people whose job it is to find out about the world around us, can’t tell the difference between an ancestor and a contemporary?

And even better, you think that you, an unlettered layman, know better than those with extensive training in the field? You can’t even tell me what a “kind” is.

Thats right, can see you didnt bother to watch the video. The science of actual bone growth proved them wrong. Not that I realize science means that much to n evolutionist.

You cant tell me what a species is. Even the experts can't, they are so locked up in debate over it to this day. Your one to talk, when your own experts cant even follow their own definitions they themselves wrote.....

But I understand ad hominem attacks is all you really have, so I forgive you.

 

[HiEv]

it's not what you said here:

"Except the logical progression of the fossil record, with no exceptions"

so we indeed found exceptions.

No, they didn't find "exceptions" to the logical progression of the fossil record, all they found is evidence that changes the time table a little bit.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Francis collins follows the scientific evidence.

Yes and the very first thing he does is to admit that he does not have all the answers. In fact answers only create more questions. For every answer people respond with a ton of questions.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

One of the big things to remember though is that there is a discordance between changes between genotype and phenotype. Phenotypes can remain relatively fixed even if organisms undergo considerable genetic changes, and vise-versa.

Since we don't have 2 billion year old DNA to compare, we can't really see what is really happening under the hood.

From a phenotype POV though, if an organism is well adapted to its environment and that environment remains relatively constant, one wouldn't necessarily expect much phenotype-specific change.

Yah, you dont have any DNA from dinosaurs, but it doesnt seem to bother you there. Nor do you have any from that missing common ancestor, yet it doesnt seem to hinder you there either.
I sense double-talk....

So if it can be interpreted to show evolution its a fact, no DNA needed for confirmation, if it can be interpreted to show no evolution its questionable because we have no DNA for confirmation..... That about sum it up?

 

[joshua 1 9]

they are so locked up in debate over it to this day.

Science is like the soup of the day or the flavor of the week. If you do not like what is on the menu today then stop back tomorrow. Everything will be new and you can have a whole new selection to choose from. IF you do not offer people new choices you will soon be out of business.

 

[joshua 1 9]

you dont have any DNA from dinosaurs

What? I am shocked!!! Do you mean to tell us that they lied in Jurassic Park, they did not find dinosaur DNA still inside fossilized mosquitoes preserved intact in amber???

 

[pitabread]

Yah, you dont have any DNA from dinosaurs, but it doesnt seem to bother you there. Nor do you have any from that missing common ancestor, yet it doesnt seem to hinder you there either.
I sense double-talk....

So if it can be interpreted to show evolution its a fact, no DNA needed for confirmation, if it can be interpreted to show no evolution its questionable because we have no DNA.....

There is no double talk. It's just basic understanding of the difference between the phenotype versus the genotype of an organism. I mean, you *do* know the difference, don't you?

Especially when considering a basic definition of evolution as a change in allele frequencies within a population over time. The basic definition of evolution applies to the genotype. There is nothing that mandates changes to phenotype. It just happens in some cases and clearly not as much in others.

 

[gaara4158]

Thats right, can see you didnt bother to watch the video. The science of actual bone growth proved them wrong. Not that I realize science means that much to n evolutionist.

You cant tell me what a species is. Even the experts can't, they are so locked up in debate over it to this day. Your one to talk, when your own experts cant even follow their own definitions they themselves wrote.....

But I understand ad hominem attacks is all you really have, so I forgive you.

I’ll watch your video later. I prefer written text, it forces you to explain what you’re arguing yourself rather than rely on someone else to do it for you. If we were doing that I’d just post an AaronRa video in response to all your posts, but where’s the fun in that? For now, I’ll prove you wrong yet again:
Species:
spe·cies
ˈspēsēz,ˈspēSHēz/
noun

1. 1.
   BIOLOGY
   a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens.
   
   Now, sometimes the line from one species to the next can be fuzzy, but that’s to be expected. Evolution happens on a gradient, not cubicles.
   
   
   Now define Kind.

 

[joshua 1 9]

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

The internet is public, the forum itself is on a private server. The rules are you can only complain about comment made about you. They do not allow you to complain about comments made to someone else.

 

[HiEv]

Mutations exist.

Yes and no one has ever shown me a beneficial mutation.

How about the mutations to the citT genes in the E. coli long-term evolution experiment which allowed E. coli bacteria to be able to metabolize citrate in an anaerobic environment? This improved the bacteria which had this mutation by giving them another food source, allowing them to be more successful than the normal E. coli, which can't anaerobically metabolize citrate.

I can't wait to see how you try to worm out of this one.

But mutations are evil,

Actually, mutations are usually neutral. Lots of our genetic code does nothing, and even in the parts that do do something, it's possible to have mutations that don't change what the codon does.

nothing about creationism explains anything or is well-substantiated.

Show me, give it your best shot. The only thing that is not well-substantiated is your understanding of creationism. Not everyone understands creationism and perhaps you need someone to explain it for you to help you to understand.

Show what to you? The absence of evidence or explanation? How do I point to nothing?

Look, if you think I need someone to explain it to me, don't just yell at me, actually explain it to me. I've had it explained to me plenty of times, and every time someone has tried it's utterly failed to mount up to a scientific hypothesis, let alone something well-substantiated by objective evidence.

You wanted to see an example of a beneficial mutation, I gave you one.

Your turn.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Science is like the soup of the day or the flavor of the week. If you do not like what is on the menu today then stop back tomorrow. Everything will be new and you can have a whole new selection to choose from. IF you do not offer people new choices you will soon be out of business.

No, because if you dont keep changing your story, it will end up being falsified. A theory that can change like silly putty is no theory at all. One that cant be falsified because one simply changes what they say it is day to day is no theory at all. When one can ignore finches interbreeding right in front of their eyes and refuse to admit to the mistake in classification, but continue it, one has no theory at all.

Even Darwin understood this and stated that the entire theory rested upon what we define as a species. Thats why they cant come to an agreement, because they want to be able to call anything they want a separate species in order to uphold their belief in speciation.

Soup of the day indeed. Pots luck soup.....

And I support science 100 percent. I just dont support their PR interpretations and refusal to accept their own definitions.... The science and empirical observations dont support evolution, just their PR take on it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There is no double talk. It's just basic understanding of the difference between the phenotype versus the genotype of an organism. I mean, you *do* know the difference, don't you?

Especially when considering a basic definition of evolution as a change in allele frequencies within a population over time. The basic definition of evolution applies to the genotype. There is nothing that mandates changes to phenotype. It just happens in some cases and clearly not as much in others.

You didnt answer my question.

So if it can be interpreted to show evolution its a fact, no DNA needed for confirmation, if it can be interpreted to show no evolution its questionable because we have no DNA for confirmation..... That about sum it up?

Thats not the definition of evolution.

a :descent with modification from preexisting species :cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms :the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations

But i can show you a new form in 26 weeks, 9 months in some, with no mutation to those alleles..... and no generations needed from one to the next.... Just use empirical evidence not theory.... while those mutations cant even cross the breed or race barrier.

 

[pitabread]

You didnt answer my question.

So if it can be interpreted to show evolution its a fact, no DNA needed for confirmation, if it can be interpreted to show no evolution its questionable because we have no DNA for confirmation..... That about sum it up?

Your question is a poorly phrased run-on sentence. Take some time to re-word it and ask again later.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I was commenting on the contradiction that evolution was claimed to not be random

Yes you offered the argument B362 and they gave you the counter argument xy2z. We can save time if we just assign a number to the argument and the counter argument.

The watchmaker argument actually goes back to Isaac Newton back in the 1600's: "that the physical laws he had uncovered (René Descartes), revealed the mechanical perfection of the workings of the universe to be akin to a watchmaker, wherein the watchmaker is God." William Dembski's intelligent designer is just a variation of the watchmaker argument.

More recently Hoyle claimed that that the chance of a random mutation is so slim as to make the whole argument meaningless. Their response to that is "not true, not true, not true" and they offer nothing in the way of a counter argument to show that his math is not substantial.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes and no one has ever shown me a beneficial mutation. We know that all things work out for the best. We know that God causes good to come out of evil. But mutations are evil, it is God that is able to turn evil around and cause good to come out of the evil we find here in the world we live in.

We live in a fallen world and mutations are a part of the fall. It is God that is doing a work to bring about redemption. This is His desire to restore all of creation to His plan and purpose. He is going to undo the harm and the damage that the devil and man has inflicted on His Creation.

No, we dont know a god is this or that. You are simply making a claim and failing to support it with anything but opinion.