Science vs. Evolution

[Greatcloud]

Here you can call it a pratt video all you want but it remains proof and well delivered proof I might add.

The Great Dinosaur Mystery STREAMING VIDEO - ChristianAnswers.Net

And here are some startling pictographs found in Peru and Mexico.

World Mysteries - Parallel World - Gods, Humans and Dinosaurs living together, by Rich Anders

 

[tanzanos]

I stand along side of Cassiterides & AV1611VET as a staunch opposer of the theory of evolution and it being an incorrect one; just like the earth being flat was descovered to be wrong. After a mere 150 years we are waking up to the incorrectness of science. For instance there is plenty of proof for dinosaures and humans (homo sapians) living together. They keep catching Celocanths of the coast of Madagascar even today. I could go on but I will wait for your response to what I have written so far.


Evolution

Did you know that Obama is a dinosaur? ( homo reptilicus democraticus). Everyone knows that Noah saved the dinosaurs also; and micro evolution took over after the flood and all the Dinosaurs evolved into evilutionists.

I challenge anyone to prove me wrong!

You talking to me?

 

[tanzanos]

Here you can call it a pratt video all you want but it remains proof and well delivered proof I might add.

The Great Dinosaur Mystery STREAMING VIDEO - ChristianAnswers.Net

And here are some startling pictographs found in Peru and Mexico.

World Mysteries - Parallel World - Gods, Humans and Dinosaurs living together, by Rich Anders

Don't bother baiting; The fish aint biting today!!!!

 

[Hespera]

Here you can call it a pratt video all you want but it remains proof and well delivered proof I might add.

The Great Dinosaur Mystery STREAMING VIDEO - ChristianAnswers.Net

And here are some startling pictographs found in Peru and Mexico.

World Mysteries - Parallel World - Gods, Humans and Dinosaurs living together, by Rich Anders

they say that "a fool and his money are soon parted" so hope that with your powers of critical evaluation, you are not discovered by any nigerian scam artist.

 

[lucaspa]

Creationists believe in a few thousand, while evolutionists millions.

Actually, Linneaus was a creationist. How many species did he list?

What qualifies as a 'species' is not agreed upon by anyone. In fact evolutionists argue among themselves since they can't agree what a specie is or how to define one.

That's not quite the case. Evolutionists agree on the Biological Species Concept:
A species is a group of individuals fully fertile inter se, but barred from interbreeding with other similar groups by its physiological properties. (producing either incompatibility of parents, or sterility of the hybrids, or both). (Dobzhansky 1935)

Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups. (Mahr 1942)

No scientifist is in agreement with what a species is, so to claim 'speciation' is proove of evolution when the existance of species is in dispute is clearly a fallacy.

So speciation is not evidence for evolution.

This argument is the fallacy. When you start out with a single population that can interbreed and then have 2 populations that do not interbreed, then you have speciation.

And that has been observed in real time both in the lab and in the wild. Just a few papers documenting the formation of new species are:

1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures.
2. D Dodd. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Evolution 43(6): 1308-1311, 1989. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-3820(198909)43%3A6%3C1308%3ARIAACO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K
2. Hybrid speciation in peonies http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1
3. Scruffy little weed shows Darwin was right as evolution moves on new species of groundsel by hybridization

Now, you noted, in dealing with foxes, that, based on morphology, that there is disagreement on what are varieties and what are species. Darwin also noted this, and noted that it is powerful evidence for evolution. This type of confusion is to be expected if evolution is true. Such confusion refutes creationism. Darwin was working at a time before the Biological Species Concept, when species was determined -- like Linneaus did -- by morphology:

"Nor shall I discuss here the various definitions which have been given of of the term species. No one definition has satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species. Generally the term includes the unknown element of a distanct act of creation. The term 'variety' is almost equally difficult to define; but here community of descent is almost universally implied, though it can rarely be proved." Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, 6th edition, pg 58

"Hence, in determining whether a form should be ranked as a species or a variety, the opinion of naturalists having sound judgement and wide experience seems the only guide to follow. We must, however, in many cases, decide by a majority of naturalists, for few well-marked and wll-known varieties can be named which have not been ranked as species by at least some competent judge." pg 62

"Some few naturalists maintain that animals never present varieties; but then these same naturalists rank the lightest difference as of specific value; and when the same indetical form is met with in two distant countries, or in two geological formaions, they believe that two distinct species are hidden under the same dress. The term species thus comes to be a mere useless abstraction, implying and assuming a separate act of creation. It is certain that many forms, considered by highly-competent judges to be varieties, resemble species so completely in character, that they have been thus ranked by other highly-competent judeges. But to discuss whether they ought to be called species or varieties, before any definition of these terms has been generally accepted, is vainly to beat the air." pg 64

Darwin describes the work of De Candolle, who had done an exhaustive study of oak species and varieties.
"De Candolle then goes on to say that he gives the rank of species to the forms that differ by characters never varying on the same tree, and never found connected by intermediate states. After this discussion, the result of so much labour, he emphatically remarks: 'They are mistaken, who repeat that the greater part of our species are clearly limited, and that the doubtful species are in a feeble minority. This seems to be true, so long as a genus is imperfectly known, and its species were founded upon a few specimens, that is to say, were provisional. Just as we come to know them better, imtermediate forms flow in, and doubts as to specific limits augment.'" pg 65

"Finally, De Candolle admits that out of the 300 species, which will be enumerated in hs Prodromus as belonging to the oak family, at least two-thirds are provisional species, that is, are not known strictly to fulfil the definition above given of a true species. It should be added that De Candolle no longer believes that species ae immutable creations, but concludes that the derivative theory is the most natural one, 'and the most accordant with the known facts in paleontology, geographical botany and zoology, of anatomical structure and classification.'" pg 65

Darwin concludes:
"Certainly no clear line of demarcation has as yet been drawn between species and sub-species --that is, the forms which in the opinion of some naturalists come very near to, but do not quite arrive at, the rank of species: or, again, between sub-species and well-marked varieties, or between lesser varieties and individual differences. These differences blend into each other by an insensible series; and a series impresses the mind with the idea of an actual passage." Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, 6th edition, pg 66

 

[lucaspa]

Here you can call it a pratt video all you want but it remains proof and well delivered proof I might add.

The Great Dinosaur Mystery STREAMING VIDEO - ChristianAnswers.Net

It is a PRATT. Why don't you pick out one point made in the video. We will address it, and then you can move on to the next "proof".

Look at it this way. Hundreds of dinosaur species. Lots of humans over the millennia. IF humans and dinos lived together, then we should find the dino bones in the same strata we find human ones -- in lots of places. This is what happens with mammals. Looking at human fossils from Europe, the Mid-East, and Africa, we find fossils of rodents, deer, etc. at all of them. Not just one. But all of them. If humans and dinos had lived side-by-side, then that should be the case with dinos, too.

For instance, at Dinosaur National Monument, there are thousands of bones of all the land animals living at the time -- large and small -- all mixed together as they were caught in a local flood, swept downstream, and then deposited in one place. No human or even large mammal bones anywhere in the mix. But, if humans and other large mammals lived side by side with dinos, there should be. There should be deer, buffalo, elk, rats, mountain lions, and the other mammals that lived in Utah. But there aren't. Not one.

And here are some startling pictographs found in Peru and Mexico.

World Mysteries - Parallel World - Gods, Humans and Dinosaurs living together, by Rich Anders

PT Barnum said there was one born every minute. The people who made these forgeries have confessed! They made them to enhance the tourist trade and to make money off of gullible tourists.

 

[lucaspa]

Is this a 'creo site'?

Ten Reasons Evolution is Wrong

It's a personal site who copied from creationists websites. So yes, it is a " 'creo site". Second hand.

Tell me, AV, if someone repeats false witness, is that person also guilty of false witness?

 

[lucaspa]

This you have robbed from the creationists? Ray and Linnaeus taught fixety of the ''kinds'' in Genesis. Different animals can't breed with others.

That is what they thought. AT THE TIME. New data has caused us to change our views.

The creationist argument is whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through.

There is immense complexity within each species, but a distinct barrier between species.

And, it turns out, that isn't true. Phylogenetic analysis (of genes) has shown that there is no barrier at all!

Speciation has not been observed because physically scientists can not agree with how to define a species.

That's an excuse. IF such barriers really existed, there would be no problem on how to define a species: anything within the barrier. What you are doing is projecting a weakness of creationism onto evolution. Creationists can't agree on "created kind" (baramin).

But you are just engaged in handwaving: Scientists can't agree on how to define a species. Because they can't do that, then no speciation can be observed. Since they can't observe speciation, then evolution doesn't happen.

OK, that logic is amusing. Makes a good comedy routine. But the disconnect between the first and second sentences is not logical. All it does is serve an emotional need.

 

[Cassiterides]

Sorry for the long gap in my reply (was away for awhile), i will go and review some comments in this thread and perhaps get back to them.

On the subject of science vs. evolution, i found an interesting quote recently which relates to this:

''It is obvious for example, that no one observed the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the conversion of fish into amphibian, or an ape into a man... Evolution has been postulated but it has never been observed''
- Evolution, the fossils say no! By Duane Gish, p.3

Are evolutionists in agreement with the following facts (?):

1. We can not observe the origin of the universe or the origin of life, so this falls outside of the scientific method.
2. Evolution i.e an ape evolving into a man, or a fish into an amphibian is also not observable.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Sorry for the long gap in my reply (was away for awhile), i will go and review some comments in this thread and perhaps get back to them.

On the subject of science vs. evolution, i found an interesting quote recently which relates to this:

''It is obvious for example, that no one observed the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the conversion of fish into amphibian, or an ape into a man... Evolution has been postulated but it has never been observed''
- Evolution, the fossils say no! By Duane Gish, p.3

Are evolutionists in agreement with the following facts (?):

1. We can not observe the origin of the universe or the origin of life, so this falls outside of the scientific method.
2. Evolution i.e an ape evolving into a man, or a fish into an amphibian is also not observable.

Nice, a galloping Gish quote.

No, I am not in agreement with your "facts."

 

[Tinker Grey]

1. We can not observe the origin of the universe or the origin of life, so this falls outside of the scientific method.

Only if you think forensics isn't science.

2. Evolution i.e an ape evolving into a man, or a fish into an amphibian is also not observable.

Evolution is observable and is observed in the lab all the time. It is where new antibiotics comes from. Somebody will be along with a list of observed evolution that goes beyond microbiotics.

Too, populations evolve in response to environmental pressure. We would not expect, therefore, that today's apes would evolve into humans though if they survive our "dominion" they will most certainly evolve.

 

[Cassiterides]

Evolution is observable and is observed in the lab all the time.

Can you then show some evidence when it was observed that an ape evolved into a man, or a fish into an amphibian?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Can you then show some evidence when it was observed that an ape evolved into a man, or a fish into an amphibian?

No. And in fact you'll notice that I said that we wouldn't expect to see that happen now. Too, creatures with longer life spans take longer to evolve.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Can you then show some evidence when it was observed that an ape evolved into a man, or a fish into an amphibian?

No - if an individual changes into a new species, evolution is wrong.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Can you then show some evidence when it was observed that an ape evolved into a man, or a fish into an amphibian?

No, since apes didn't evolve into men, nor fish into amphibians. Modern humans are apes, as are gorillas, etc. All apes share a common ancestor that lived however long ago (100 million, off the top of my head). Likewise, modern fish and modern amphibians (and, indeed, reptiles and mammals) are all descendants a common ancestor species that we call Gnathostomata - the infraphylum containing all jawed vertebrates. That species may have very well resembled modern fish, at least superficially.
But it's incorrect to say fish evolved into amphibians, since no species will evolve into another, pre-existing species. Moreover, all descendants of a species will forever be part of that taxon: if 'cow' split into many distinct species, they would all be cows, but in the same way all flies are flies, or all dogs are dogs, or all mammals are mammals. Eventually, those various cow species would be as varied as insects - they're still cows, but evolution has undoubtedly happened.

The evidence is in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, comparative genetics, geographic distribution, the molecular clock, ERV sequencing, etc. Indeed, evidence comes from every field of science: radiology, geology, geography, biology (anatomy, genetics, etc), chemistry, biochemistry, etc.


Anyway. What I think Tinker Grey meant* was that evolution, the biological phenomenon that scientists talk about, is observed in the lab. Obviously that doesn't mean we can see fish evolving into amphibians (not least because that never happened); that's like saying a chemist in his lab can see all chemical reactions that ever happened in the entire universe. Likewise, demanding a scientist show you in his lab a gorilla evolving into a human just belies your lack of understanding, and will probably get you a clip round the ear.

*Yes, Tinker Grey, I'm arrogant enough to speak for you

 

[Tinker Grey]

*Yes, Tinker Grey, I'm arrogant enough to speak for you

You have done well, grasshopper.

 

[Split Rock]

1. We can not observe the origin of the universe or the origin of life, so this falls outside of the scientific method.

We can study the universe and living organisms and carry out experiments on them. Thus we can infer much about their origins.

2. Evolution i.e an ape evolving into a man, or a fish into an amphibian is also not observable.

Again, we can study the effects of evolution on species, such as their genetic material, embryological development, anatomy, etc. From this, we can infer common descent.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Are evolutionists in agreement with the following facts (?):

1. We can not observe the origin of the universe or the origin of life, so this falls outside of the scientific method.

No.

2. Evolution i.e an ape evolving into a man, or a fish into an amphibian is also not observable.

In the same way that the act of murder cannot be observed by a detective who arrives hours later at the scene of the crime. Obviously, that doesn't mean the crime is unsolvable, or that we can't know what happened.

I think you're confusing the literal, colloquial definition of 'observation' with the technical, scientific definition - they're quite different.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Can you then show some evidence when it was observed that an ape evolved into a man, or a fish into an amphibian?

Google Tiktaalik roseae, oh ye' of little faith. Or, you could google "human evolution" and find tons of stuff. All you gotta' do is dig a little.

 

[USincognito]

All apes share a common ancestor that lived however long ago (100 million, off the top of my head).

Catarrhine common ancestor was more like 25-35 million years ago. 100 million years ago we probably had the common ancestors of the Laurasiathere, Afrothere and Euarchontoglire groups.
Euarchontoglires - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Euarchontogliers is our clade so I'm linking to it.)