proving evolution as just a "theory"

[USincognito]

Take a look at the Emetazoa article and break that down in plain English for the common folk. Wonder if you really can or if you just posted a bunch of stuff you have no idea what it says.

You are calling me out on knowing what I'm talking about?

 

[USincognito]

No that would prove evolution not falsify it.

Incorrect. You must understand anything about evolution if you seriously think that a bird with wings and arms would "prove"* it. That same goes for any of the other things on my list. If you are that bereft of understanding of the subject, I suggest reading more and commenting less.

Be cause evolution claims we all came from the same ancestor therefore we evolved from a thing that wasn't us in the beginning.

This particular misconception has nothing to do with my list of potential falsifications. I'll try and keep this really simple.
1. Descendants never stop being that their ancestors were. Humans will always be hominids, primates, mammals, synapsids, sarcopterygians, etc.
2. Lineage specific characteristics like fur/hair in mammals being found in another branch like fish would falsify evolution.
3. Beings that are not closely related (humans and armadillos) having more in common genetically than beings that are closely related (humans and chimpanzees) would falsify evolution.
4. Lobsters are invertebrates and thus lack a vertebral column. If we were to observe one with a vertebral column that would falsify evolution.
5. Etc.

What was a bird before it was a bird? What was a bird before it evolved feathers?

Again, we're getting into the fact that you don't actually understand evolution. A "bird" is not some sort of pure Platonic form. Birds evolved from feathered theropod dinosaurs which themselves evolved from basal archosaurs. "Birds" however, never stopped being dinosaurs or archosaurs (etc.). The are merely a branch of theropod dinosaurs that split off in the Jurassic and survived the K-Pg extinction event. Again, I suggest you read more and pontificate less until you grasp some of the basics of evolution.

* You really need to learn that science doesn't prove anything and there's no such thing as scientific proof.

 

[xianghua]

3. Beings that are not closely related (humans and armadillos) having more in common genetically than beings that are closely related (humans and chimpanzees) would falsify evolution.

are you sure? if i will give you something like that you will admit evolution is false?

"Descendants never stop being that their ancestors were. Humans will always be hominids

so human will always be a fish?

 

[Skreeper]

are you sure? if i will give you something like that you will admit evolution is false?

Let me guess..has it something to do with robots or motors?

 

[pitabread]

Again, I suggest you read more and pontificate less until you grasp some of the basics of evolution.

If more creationists did this, there would be far fewer creationists.

 

[USincognito]

More speculation and assumption. All the suggestions are assumptions. You have no evidence to show it actually happened. Evolution is full of that.

It has been explained to you previously that using magic words like "speculation" and "assumption" is:
1. Not actually addressing the evidence.
2. Does not make the evidence somehow not evidence.
3. Does not poof the evidence away in a cloud of smoke.

You need to actually address the evidence, not just repeat Creationist magic words.

Take a look at the Emetazoa article and break that down in plain English for the common folk. Wonder if you really can or if you just posted a bunch of stuff you have no idea what it says.

Title - Colonial origin for Eumetazoa (the title is a typo)
Meaning - True animals evolved from early colony beings

"These transitions included the origins of Metazoa, Eumetazoa, and Bilateria and involved the successive development of poriferan, cnidarian, and bilaterian grades of organization."
Meaning - the origins of animals involved sponges*, then true animals followed with jellyfish* followed by bilatarian body plans for, axiomatically, bilaterians.

"In the model offered for the cnidarian-to-bilaterian transition, the last common ancestor of Eumetazoa is considered to have had a colonial, cnidarian-grade of organization."

For the evolution of jellyfish to bilaterians, the population that gave rise to that spilt (basal true animals) would have had a colony type, jellyfish style body plan.

"Whatever its cause, the individuation of a cnidarian-grade colony furnishes a possible explanation for the rapid diversification of bilaterians in the late Vendian and Cambrian."

An explanation for the development of Ediacaran fauna and the Cambrian explosion can be explained by jellyfish type colony beings developing a variety of body plans.

* I'm using common example beings for porifera and cnidarians.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So we'll ignore all those stalactites that are over a few metres in length shall we? What about the ones that have been measured to have a much slower growth rate? And the ones which have been shown, by several independent methods to be multitudes older than 10,000 years? And the amount of time it takes caves to form?

If you can't see the problems with the nonsense you're proposing I can't help you.

But we are already discussing your all’s tendency to ignore relativity for any moving object but rocket ships in another thread, which ties directly into your claim of age. You all seemed to understand relativity corrections needed to be applied to all moving objects, until it came to a moving earth, then suddenly decided to ignore the science you all claim to follow.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Species.

> Birds from birds.
Order.

> Monkeys from monkeys,
Not a monophyletic classification.

> beetles from beetles are the only way things change.
An order with 400,000 species.

I guess "kind" means anything you want it to.


Birds were, and are theropod dinosaurs.


Ooops.
https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-017-0399-x

Analysis of synteny conservation across the P. tepidariorum genome suggests that there has been an ancient WGD in spiders. Comparison with the genomes of other chelicerates, including that of the newly sequenced bark scorpion Centruroides sculpturatus, suggests that this event occurred in the common ancestor of spiders and scorpions,​

The Last Common Ancestor of Most Bilaterian Animals Possessed at Least Nine Opsins
Colonial origin for Emetazoa: major morphological transitions and the origin of bilaterian complexity. - PubMed - NCBI
[Origin of bilateral-symmetrical animals (Bilateria)]. - PubMed - NCBI

You wouldn’t happen to be able to show any of these claimed common ancestors would you?

 

[xianghua]

when it comes to using something to age the Earth, these sorts of exceptional things are the most critical. I highly doubt that the average rock on this planet dates to 4.5 billion years old, but we don't use the average age of rocks to date something to begin with.

so? this is because many geological process that changed the originial formation. but indeed, if all those rock formations were in place since their formations, we should get the same result in most rocks.

The fragile nature of stalactites is a simple and reasonable explanation for why the majority of them are no more than a few thousand years old. Once they get too big, they break. If a stalactite can only possibly last for, say, 30,000 years or so at most, they could never be used to date the planet, because if the planet is older, there wouldn't be any stalactites as old as the planet is.

if it was true then the cave floor should be full of stalactite pieces. but as you can see- this is not what we find:

(image from 10 Famous Underground Caves in the World)

(image from Stalactites And Stalagmites In Jenolan Caves Stock Photo | Getty Images)

-_- also, dating methods have to match up with each other,

right. we have other evidence that point to a young earth too. but for now i want to focus at this one.

 

[Jimmy D]

(image from 10 Famous Underground Caves in the World)

(image from Stalactites And Stalagmites In Jenolan Caves Stock Photo | Getty Images)




right. we have other evidence that point to a young earth too. but for now i want to focus at this one.

Are you proposing that these caves were present at the time the Earth was created 6000 years ago?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This particular misconception has nothing to do with my list of potential falsifications. I'll try and keep this really simple.
1. Descendants never stop being that their ancestors were. Humans will always be hominids, primates, mammals, synapsids, sarcopterygians, etc.

And fish? And anthropoids? And bacteria?

2. Lineage specific characteristics like fur/hair in mammals being found in another branch like fish would falsify evolution.

Hmm, so what does that say since we evolved from fish?

3. Beings that are not closely related (humans and armadillos) having more in common genetically than beings that are closely related (humans and chimpanzees) would falsify evolution.

So updates place human/chimp at around 92% and mice at 97%...

4. Lobsters are invertebrates and thus lack a vertebral column. If we were to observe one with a vertebral column that would falsify evolution.
5. Etc.

Nothing falsifies evolution, since no evolution supports evolution.

So the single celled organism has no vertebral column. Animals now do...... so a lobster evolving one in 10 million years falsifies evolution, but all the animals today developing one from one that didn’t have one (an invertebrate) supports it? What contradiction you propose.

Again, we're getting into the fact that you don't actually understand evolution. A "bird" is not some sort of pure Platonic form. Birds evolved from feathered theropod dinosaurs which themselves evolved from basal archosaurs. "Birds" however, never stopped being dinosaurs or archosaurs (etc.). The are merely a branch of theropod dinosaurs that split off in the Jurassic and survived the K-Pg extinction event. Again, I suggest you read more and pontificate less until you grasp some of the basics of evolution.

* You really need to learn that science doesn't prove anything and there's no such thing as scientific proof.

Except you can’t show a single common ancestor for anything where this imaginary split happened.

 

[PsychoSarah]

so? this is because many geological process that changed the originial formation. but indeed, if all those rock formations were in place since their formations, we should get the same result in most rocks.

-_- if all those rock formations were "in place since their formation" doesn't quite make sense for a lot of them, because they never stopped forming. To be blunt, all rocks don't date the same age, and the range of ages is huge.

if it was true then the cave floor should be full of stalactite pieces. but as you can see- this is not what we find:

(image from 10 Famous Underground Caves in the World)

(image from Stalactites And Stalagmites In Jenolan Caves Stock Photo | Getty Images)

-_- I can see the crumpled rocky fragments all over the ground, especially in the second photo. When they fall apart, it isn't usually just into 2 big pieces or as one solid piece, you know, they shatter. But, hey, I managed to find a cave that has a big pile of big ones all over the floor https://s1-ssl.dmcdn.net/XrOFA.jpg also, look at those huge stalagmites. They grow similarly to stalactites and are structurally much more stable, so of the two, why not use those to get a date? Stalactites all over the ground here too https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2016/05/CNRS_20160048_0006/lead_960.jpg?1464180693
Perhaps large chunks are often cleared away from the floor in popular tourist caves to prevent people from tripping on them? That, or all the foot traffic pounds them into dust. Regardless, I find plenty of images of caves with stalactites on the floor.

right. we have other evidence that point to a young earth too. but for now i want to focus at this one.

If you have other evidence, bring it, because you still aren't noting the fact that the extreme range in stalactite formation speed makes them terrible for dating anything, as does the fact that they are fragile.

 

[Jimmy D]

And fish? And anthropoids? And bacteria?

Hmm, so what does that say since we evolved from fish?


So updates place human/chimp at around 92% and mice at 97%...

Nothing falsifies evolution, since no evolution supports evolution.

So the single celled organism has no vertebral column. Animals now do...... so a lobster evolving one in 10 million years falsifies evolution, but all the animals today developing one from one that didn’t have one (an invertebrate) supports it? What contradiction you propose.



Except you can’t show a single common ancestor for anything where this imaginary split happened.

Hey, you're back! Just a quick reminder.....

Post

Post

 

[tas8831]

So updates place human/chimp at around 92% and mice at 97%...

I note you provide no citation or link or even a quote.


And still waiting for you to EXPLAIN and provide EVIDENCE that:

middle eastern + middle eastern = African and Asian and Inuit and Nordic and.....

 

[tas8831]

LOL. No. It really doesn't.

Please look at these articles / papers.

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2008/february27/med-genemap-022708.html

(Edit: I don't know why the pic of the gene map isn't showing, it's in the link though.)

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/268806252_fig1_Figure-1-Phylogenetic-tree-of-62-world-populations-based-on-Cavalli-Sforza's-Chord

View attachment 212040



I can't see any evidence of hybridization, can you point it out? Or should we just take your word for it?

LOL. "Real biology"!

It seems that if justa's wacky creationist genetics had any real foundation in reality, it would be very easy for him to present evidence just as you did.

But, of course...

 

[BradB]

Why did the "common designer"...
- give humans and chimpanzees the same 203,000 endogenous retroviruses

Man (who was given dominion over creation sinned) and death entered into all of creation as a result of our curse. This curse effected all of creation.

- give all Haplorhine primates including humans a broken GULO (vitamin C production) gene
- give whales a broken Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 gene pathway for hind limb development
- give all therian mammals broken VTG genes for egg yolk sac development

Anything "broken" ...see above answer.

 

[BradB]

Odd that honesty and integrity is a "distraction" among so many Christians.

When a creationist plagiarizes, that tells me that, besides the whole dishonesty thing, they cannot digest the information and draw their own conclusions.

Please allow me to direct your attention to a little court case that you seem to be unfamiliar with which set precedence for the entire country in 2013 entitled the "Fair Use Act":

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

So please stop accusing Christians of dishonesty when they have done nothing of the sort. If you were truly interested in the truth at all you would have at least attempted to address the issues raised rather than to "distract" by whining about plagiarism.

As a side note here I notice that everyone seems to have decided to ignore the facts that I pointed out about no true evidence supporting evolution. Not a single example of a finely graduated chain between major forms has ever been presented, and no examples of new and beneficial gene changing type mutations in the genome of a multi celled organism exists. Without anything like these the theory of universal common decent is just a bed time story nothing more.

 

[xianghua]

-_- I can see the crumpled rocky fragments all over the ground, especially in the second photo. When they fall apart, it isn't usually just into 2 big pieces or as one solid piece, you know, they shatter. But, hey, I managed to find a cave that has a big pile of big ones all over the floor https://s1-ssl.dmcdn.net/XrOFA.jpg also, look at those huge stalagmites.

so we can see that they dont break up into many small pieces. they are also too few. if indeed they break up every 10000 years and lets say that the cave age is about 1my we should find much more then few pieces.

Perhaps large chunks are often cleared away from the floor in popular tourist caves to prevent people from tripping on them?

very unlikely. here is a new cave that found no long time ago (still close to visitors as far as i know and even its location being kept secret):

and again we can see the same result. (image from timesofisrael.com)

 

[tas8831]

Man (who was given dominion over creation sinned) and death entered into all of creation as a result of our curse. This curse effected all of creation..

Begging the question.

 

[Jimmy D]

As a side note here I notice that everyone seems to have decided to ignore the facts that I pointed out about no true evidence supporting evolution. Not a single example of a finely graduated chain between major forms has ever been presented, and no examples of new and beneficial gene changing type mutations in the genome of a multi celled organism exists. Without anything like these the theory of universal common decent is just a bed time story nothing more.

Really Brad?

A sequence of Equid fossils that paleontologists accept as a geat example has been presented.. unfortunately it didn't meet you unrealistic demands. (By the way, my response to your "rib" objection was ignored.) Besides only a tiny percentage of the flora and fauna that has ever existed undergoes fossilization, and they're difficult to find - It still paints a very clear picture to anyone with an open mind though.... and it ain't special creation.

Not that we particularly rely on the fossil record for evidence anyway.

no examples of new and beneficial gene changing type mutations in the genome of a multi celled organism exists.

I won't even dignify that with an answer given the examples presented in this thread.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Without anything like these the theory of universal common decent is just a bed time story nothing more.

Yet everyone who has studied or work in fields related to the TOE claim that common descent is one of, if not, the strongest and best supported theory in science. Yet the only objections come from those with religious reasons to reject it. Yet it's an applied science that has real world applications. Yet empirical evidence exists which cannot be otherwise explained.

The majority of your posts in this thread are merely parrotting creationist PRATTs suggesting that you have little interest in actually learning about these subjects. I suggest a change in reading material, you might find the answers to the questions you asked above - no one is here to spoon feed you.