Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

[Loudmouth]

Not today, perhaps tomorrow. I am elderly, I have pains in my brain, and there are times when my brain painly breaks down. My best wishes for your future.

If you can't tell us how you determine if a fossil is inconsistent with evolution or how you determine that a fossil is un-evolved, why should we take your claims seriously?

 

[Loudmouth]

maybe it has been.
maybe it's forbidden to put evolution in a bad light like that.

Maybe you forbid yourself to listen to scientists when they say that evolution is well evidenced.

 

[Loudmouth]

I can not find the drawing, I can find a citation.

"Take, for instance, the increase in body size which is one of the most striking trends in popular presentations of the horse series. In fact, the increase in size betweenHyracotherium and Equus was by no means gradual, constant, or progressive. An analysis by MacFadden (1987) of 24 ancestral-descendant species pairs revealed that 19 showed body-size increases. However, the remaining 5 lineages showed size decreases. There are even lineages within the horse family tree that show size decreases followed by reversals back to increased size (MacFadden 1984; Webb and Hulbert 1986; Hulbert 1988)." http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/ti...evolution-mainmenu-65/55-horse-evolution.html

Of course the new information means they have to rework the theory. What I am pointing out is how reluctant evolutionists are to let go of the old theory esp when the visual aids are so appealing. Even when they have been shown to not be true. Even Haeckel's embryo drawings are still in use even though it was shown to be far from accurate a long time ago. It reflects peoples mistaken ideas of evolutionary theory.

How reluctant they are? Those references go back to 1984 showing that the change in size was not a part of the assumed evolutionary trend. Can you find any real scientific papers which use the argument that the change in size by itself is evidence for evolution? What year are these references from?

Also, when I was shown the horse evolution series the feature I was shown was the legs.

What we see is a decrease in the number of digits.

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

Maybe you forbid yourself to listen to scientists when they say that evolution is well evidenced.

Statements like this cause wounder to if we are all speaking the same language, that statement is so vague, it is impossible to refute it, scientists on both sides of the argument will unanimously agree with your statement!

 

[Loudmouth]

attacking the messenger (NY times) is a logical fallacy.
i believe boyce is more than qualified to talk about this stuff.

For scientific references, there should be no messenger. In science, we use primary sources, not secondary sources.

 

[Loudmouth]

Statements like this cause wounder to if we are all speaking the same language, that statement is so vague, it is impossible to refute it, scientists on both sides of the argument will unanimously agree with your statement!

I have given quotes to whois written by the actual scientists. Whois refuses to acknowledge them. Here is a good example:

"The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns."--Eugene Koonin
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32

Even when faced with this direct quote from Koonin, whois continues to claim that the entire tree of life concept needs to be torn down for all groups of species, AND USES KOONIN AS A SOURCE.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I can't recall making one comment on these boards regarding horse evolution

Ok sorry that was Armoured I was having that conversation with. As long as we are on the subject here is what Gould said about this.

As Gould writes,

"This is life’s little joke. By imposing the model of the ladder upon the reality of bushes, we have guaranteed that our classic examples of evolutionary progress can only apply to unsuccessful lineages on the very brink of extermination—for we can linearize a bush only if it maintains but one surviving twig that we can falsely place at the summit of a ladder."

"Modern textbook diagrams suggest a unidirectional and linear evolution of horses. These justly criticized illustrations give the impression that through a series of progressive changes, horses evolved to their current, perfected form. Not at all true. Rather modern horses are just one twig within the big bushy and multidirectional evolutionary history of the group that includes modern horses and their ancient horsey relatives. There is nothing particularly special about living horses, save that they are the only surviving members of a once very diverse group." http://ncse.com/blog/2014/09/horse-is-horse-course-course-as-long-as-you-know-what-horse-0015875

 

[Loudmouth]

in order for you to scientifically state this, then you must accept that each kind of animal has a unique origin and DID NOT arise from a single source.

Why? We can classify all life as the Biota kind. That only requires a single origin of life.

For chimps and humans, they are both primates as was their common ancestor. Primates that are still primates.

For bears and humans, they are both mammals as was their common ancestor. Mammals are still mammals. They are still within the same mammal kind.

See a pattern forming here?

as a matter of fact, i believe science is slowly coming to that very conclusion.

Evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

There are hundreds of drawing on the internet that Evolutionists use to misrepresent Horse Evolution. This is suspicious to me that they misrepresent themselves in that way and then try to accuse others for what they are guilty of.

So even when faced with the fossil evidence, you still deny it. You ask for transitional fossils, yet claim they don't count when they are shown to you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok sorry that was Armoured I was having that conversation with. As long as we are on the subject here is what Gould said about this.

As Gould writes,

"This is life’s little joke. By imposing the model of the ladder upon the reality of bushes, we have guaranteed that our classic examples of evolutionary progress can only apply to unsuccessful lineages on the very brink of extermination—for we can linearize a bush only if it maintains but one surviving twig that we can falsely place at the summit of a ladder."

"Modern textbook diagrams suggest a unidirectional and linear evolution of horses. These justly criticized illustrations give the impression that through a series of progressive changes, horses evolved to their current, perfected form. Not at all true. Rather modern horses are just one twig within the big bushy and multidirectional evolutionary history of the group that includes modern horses and their ancient horsey relatives. There is nothing particularly special about living horses, save that they are the only surviving members of a once very diverse group." http://ncse.com/blog/2014/09/horse-is-horse-course-course-as-long-as-you-know-what-horse-0015875

And this is a problem how? Also, you may want to read this quote from Gould.

"Some discoveries in science are exiting because they revise or reverse previous expectations, others because they affirm with elegance something well suspected, but previously undocumented. Our four-case story, culminating in Ambulocetus, falls into the second category. This sequential discovery of picture-perfect intermediacy in the evolution of whales stands as a triumph in the history of paleontology. I cannot imagine a better tale for popular presentation of science, or a more satisfying, and intellectually based, political victory over lingering creationist opposition. As such, I present the story in this series of essays with both delight and relish."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past"
http://wise.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/knowing/gould_leviathan.html

I am guessing that you will ignore this quote because you don't like it, right?

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

I have given quotes to whois written by the actual scientists. Whois refuses to acknowledge them. Here is a good example:

"The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns."--Eugene Koonin
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32

Even when faced with this direct quote from Koonin, whois continues to claim that the entire tree of life concept needs to be torn down for all groups of species, AND USES KOONIN AS A SOURCE.

More than reasonable:

"Whether there is life remaining in the TOL beyond this usage or whether it has to be replaced by new, probably web-like representations of genome evolution, is a question of major interest for phylogenomic studies and will continue to inspire research far into the future."

I take no issue with this statement, methodology or questioning leading to more research on the subject.

 

[Loudmouth]

More than reasonable:



I take no issue with this statement, methodology or questioning leading to more research on the subject.

Do you take issue with the statement I quoted?

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

Do you take issue with the statement I quoted?

If I understand the article and related publications on the subject, this is ongoing research, no one is declaring anything just the possibility; thus, making observations and perusing the science.

Did I miss something?

 

[RickG]

Well, there are body plans. No one will mistake a fly with a mosquito, they have separate body plans, "Bauplan" in German. The fossil record is rich with Billions of Fossils by which we able to visable see species generations over long times observed. If evolution was true scientists ought to establish the evolutions of many phylogenies, but to date, they have not established even one. The timeline of the fossil record only shows each body plan of a species, appears suddenly, and un-evolved.

So you are suggesting that they just popped into existence at the right place in time as to mimic evolution over a period of more than 2 billion years? Is that what you are saying?

 

[whois]

If I understand the article and related publications on the subject, this is ongoing research, no one is declaring anything just the possibility; thus, making observations and perusing the science.

Did I miss something?

what koonin actually said about this matter can be found in the link on my profile under the information tab and in his paper from NCBI "the origin at 150".
the paper from NCBI must be paid for though.

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

what koonin actually said about this matter can be found in the link on my profile under the information tab and in his paper from NCBI "the origin at 150".
the paper from NCBI must be paid for though.

You will not get much disagreement here (yes, I am avoiding the bacteria stuff ):

One of the casualties of the genomic revolution is the concept of the Tree of Life, one of the key metaphors of biology since Darwin. And whether the Tree can or should be salvaged, according to Koonin, remains a matter of serious debate.

I like this idea; though, I would give Nye the win on that debate, I really wanted to reach in help Ham:

The Nye/Ham debate was fun. But perhaps it’s time for a Dawkins/Koonin debate.

 

[The Cadet]

maybe it has been.
maybe it's forbidden to put evolution in a bad light like that.
nonsense you say?
do not ever think like that armoured, because i have been the direct recipient of such a sham.
and it makes me even more determined to expose this garbage for what it is.

Dear moderators, can we please get a statement? Is Whois not allowed to bring up Koonin because "it's forbidden to put evolution in a bad light like that"? On a forum full to the brim with threads claiming to debunk it?

(...Actually, I don't think we need word from the moderators on this one.)

In reality, there is no evidence of any sort of embargo on research that would disprove evolution. Intelligent design advocates can point to plenty of published papers that ostensibly seem to support their crazy ideas. It's just that those papers gain no traction in the wider scientific community because they're not particularly impressive. They don't do what they claim to do. And you can claim that it's a big fat scientific conspiracy all you want, but keep in mind the company this places you in. EVERY (and I do mean EVERY) crackpot idea that failed to gain purchase in the scientific community makes this claim, from the electric universe supporters to the HIV-AIDS denialists to the flat earthers. With all those conspiracies, it's a shocker that anything gets published at all!

Jokes aside, though? There is no conspiracy. Do you have evidence or research that you think disproves the current evolutionary model? Go right ahead. Try to publish it! Of course, the fact that you have no formal training in biology and don't really seem to know all that much about it would be a bit of a problem, generally speaking...

Of course Darwinist evolution has an influence on the killing of babies and harvesting their parts. In Darwinism, a human has no inherent value other than as a mechanism to pass along genetic information. Killing, and partitioning, the sack of chemicals isn't destroying anything of value.

You had like a 19-page thread on this where numerous people pointed out, among other things:

• "Darwinism" isn't really a thing
• The theory of evolution has nothing to say about morality any more than the theory of gravity does
• The fact that we are all bags of chemicals does not devalue morality
• Numerous worldviews have posited an entirely materialistic morality, wherein the fact that we are "merely chemicals" has no bearing whatsoever on what is right or wrong for us to do.

You never addressed any of the posts in question, so it's kind of weak to come in here and make the exact same claims.

Seriously, think about what you are saying, there was a time when the USA was the greatest country in the world; which begs the question, what changed?

My guess? The rise of the moral majority and the catastrophic growth of American Anti-Intellectualism. It used to be that America was the place to go to learn and practice science. Now, it isn't any more. You try to appeal to the bible, to an unfalsifiable supernatural explanation that doesn't actually make sense, given the evidence we have (while religion has declined it has become far more virulent and aggressive in the USA; other countries that are far more secular are considerably better places to live, with a fairly strong correlation), but the fact is that we can point to one particular thing killing America: the active reverence and celebration of intentional ignorance.

Yes, we can worship the God of our choosing as long as we keep in the privacy of our homes...Attend the Church of our Choosing as long as you don't deny marrying same sex couples, teach your kids religion of your choosing but they can't take a Bible to read in study hall. Just keep it in the closet folks.

THIS JUST IN! CHRISTIAN PERSECUTED IN DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY WHICH IS 80% CHRISTIAN! You know, I'm starting to think that having "you will be persecuted" as a core tenet of a society's religion might have some rather awful consequences for that society when they rise to power and have essentially complete control of the country. For example, they might take any pronouncement speaking out against religious privilege in an ostensibly secular country as evidence of persecution, and then make some extras up when they can't find enough of that.

Nobody is stopping you from praying in public (although your own bible might). The WBC is allowed to do what they want wherever and soapbox, street-corner preachers are all over the place. I have no idea where you got this idea that you needed to pray privately. Other than like, I dunno, Mark 6:6.

Nobody is stopping you from attending the church of your choosing, and nobody is forcing churches to marry homosexuals. This didn't happen when interracial marriage became legal and it hasn't happened now. I don't know where you got the idea that churches are being forced to do this.

Where did you even hear that you can't take a bible into study hall? Of course you can! You do realize "no prayer in school" was a lie, right? You can pray in school as much as you want so long as you aren't disrupting the class. The only thing O'Hair accomplished was that the school could not force prayer onto the students. That's it. You're free to pray as much as you want in school! They don't even consider asking the all-powerful god of the bible for help on your test to be cheating!

Stop trying to invent persecution where there is none. You have no idea how privileged being a Christian in the United States of America makes you. You never have to worry about being the wrong religion. You almost never have to worry about your community disowning you because you found Jesus. You don't have to worry that people will say, "Wait, Deceived's kids are Christian? I can't have my kids hanging around that!" Your family probably isn't going to say, "Man, we have got to do something about Deceived; she's bringing up her kids without them knowing that the bible is wrong!" There are all things that atheists have to deal with on a near-constant basis in many parts of the country. My demographic is less trusted than rapists. You want to worry about persecution? Why? Because you don't have complete control of the government?!

All this talk of Christian persecution in the USA is like having to listen to a straight guy complain because he has to watch two men holding hands in the street. You have no idea how well-off you are as a Christian in America. No other country will go so far to accommodate you for your beliefs, at least not without asking for proof.

 

[Loudmouth]

If I understand the article and related publications on the subject, this is ongoing research, no one is declaring anything just the possibility; thus, making observations and perusing the science.

Did I miss something?

Then you don't understand the paper correctly. Koonin and O'Malley clearly state that eukaryotes CAN be put into a tree of life. Not maybe. Not some time in the future. NOW. This is the due to the infrequency of HGT in eukaryotes which allows us to ignore those very rare HGT events and use the overwhelming phylogenetic signal from VGT to evidence common ancestry.

What they are arguing is that since prokaryotes do not fit into well defined trees because of higher rates of HGT, and since prokaryotes make up a bulk of the species on Earth, that one shouldn't expect to put all species into a tree of life. However, the tree of life concept still works just fine for eukaryotes which includes complex vertebrates like us, chimps, bears, and fish.

 

[Loudmouth]

what koonin actually said about this matter can be found in the link on my profile under the information tab and in his paper from NCBI "the origin at 150".
the paper from NCBI must be paid for though.

You still won't deal with what Koonin directly wrote in a paper? Why? What are you afraid of?

 

[RickG]

I like this idea; though, I would give Nye the win on that debate, I really wanted to reach in help Ham:

Ham lost the debate when he said, "Well, I have this book". Don't misunderstand me, the book is fine, it's just that it has nothing to do with the topic of the debate.