The Demise of Evolution

[pitabread]

But what you have to prove is that populations evolved rather than were genetically changed through climate and environment, that all humans are the same, regardless of how much melanin is in their skin and the size of noses and lips, brown or blue eyes, blonde or brunette. Africans are not inferior to Europeans, which is believed by evolutionists that believe that ape-men originated in Africa, and that black Africans are of a lower evolutionary developmental stage than Europeans, when, in fact, the only difference between them is genetic, based on their respective environmental conditions.

...

Huh? Did you reply to the wrong post?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You are side stepping.

Your claim was that "self-consciousness is not part of the structure of the brain itself", and I pointed out the trivially presented evidence against that assertion.

Now you are making claims about self-consciousness doesn't developing over a period of time. I'm curious what you even mean by this? (I assume you also have no evidence for this).

Study of modern animals clearly demonstrates awareness of their surroundings, memory of other individuals, an existing relationship between themselves and other individuals.

Modern animals are much less intelligent then humans, but clearly have rudimentary self-consciousness.

Next, you attempt to bring up extinct "ape-humans". They are also trivially demonstrated.

The two species (of many) I feel best demonstrate your mistakes are: Homo habilis and Homo erectus
Two tool using, but extremely primitive species both clearly not what we would call a human, but far more human like then any modern ape.

(I assume you will now simply present conspiracy theories as to why this extensive evidence is false.)

But there is no evidence that these developmental stages of ape-men actually existed. For an ape to become human means that genetic material has to be added, which according to genetics this is impossible. What causes a white cat to have a ginger cat as offspring requires white and ginger genetic codes in one or more of the parent cats. When the ginger offspring mates with another ginger cat, it will have another ginger cat and not a white, because the white gene is missing from the two ginger parents. This means that genetic material is taken away, not added.

So for two apes to have humanoid offspring, there needs to be human DNA in one of the apes, otherwise the offspring will be just another ape. But human genes cannot be added to an ape, and even if by genetic engineering, all that will be produced is a deformed ape. And genetic material cannot be added by time and chance because genetics doesn't work that way.

 

[pitabread]

For an ape to become human means that genetic material has to be added, which according to genetics this is impossible.

That's not true. There is nothing in genetics preventing the addition of genetic material during reproduction of an offspring. In fact, there are various well documented types of DNA mutations that would cause exactly that to occur (e.g. gene duplications). Heck, entire new plant species arise from wholesale chromosome duplications.

You really should take advantage of that course material I linked, because it will go into the details of how all this stuff really works. I'd recommend the "Genetics and Evolution" course in particular.

Understanding genetics is key to understanding evolution and how organisms evolve, new genes form, etc.

 

[Shemjaza]

But there is no evidence that these developmental stages of ape-men actually existed.

We literally have their bones and their tools.

For an ape to become human means that genetic material has to be added, which according to genetics this is impossible.

This is false. Mutations can change, add to or create a repetition in the genetic code. That's adding information.

What causes a white cat to have a ginger cat as offspring requires white and ginger genetic codes in one or more of the parent cats. When the ginger offspring mates with another ginger cat, it will have another ginger cat and not a white, because the white gene is missing from the two ginger parents. This means that genetic material is taken away, not added.

Mutations create new variation.

Wolves don't have the genes for stubby corgi legs, flat pug faces or hyper acute beagle sense of smell... but these genetic traits now exist and can be selected for or against.

So for two apes to have humanoid offspring, there needs to be human DNA in one of the apes, otherwise the offspring will be just another ape. But human genes cannot be added to an ape, and even if by genetic engineering, all that will be produced is a deformed ape. And genetic material cannot be added by time and chance because genetics doesn't work that way.

You are mistaken about how genetics works. Go learn about how a mutation works.

An ape with more ability to walk on it hind legs for longer would have been an advantage on the ancient African savanna, that's why Lucy and her kin thrived there. That small variation on previously tree living ancestors opened up a whole new set of opportunities.

 

[Kylie]

Because evolution cannot produce self-consciousness.

As Shemjaza said, why not?

 

[Kylie]

Because self-consciousness is not part of the structure of the brain itself.

By that logic, when I install a computer program on my computer, it doesn't change how my computer is structured.

 

[Kylie]

Darwin’s House of Cards | Discovery Institute Store

In this provocative history of contemporary debates over evolution, veteran journalist Tom Bethell depicts Darwin’s theory as a nineteenth-century idea past its prime, propped up by logical fallacies, bogus claims, and empirical evidence that is all but disintegrating under an onslaught of new scientific discoveries.

Yes, because a guy who has no qualification in biology is the perfect person to explain why one of the most solidly supported ideas in all of science is wrong.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

We literally have their bones and their tools.


This is false. Mutations can change, add to or create a repetition in the genetic code. That's adding information.


Mutations create new variation.

Wolves don't have the genes for stubby corgi legs, flat pug faces or hyper acute beagle sense of smell... but these genetic traits now exist and can be selected for or against.


You are mistaken about how genetics works. Go learn about how a mutation works.

An ape with more ability to walk on it hind legs for longer would have been an advantage on the ancient African savanna, that's why Lucy and her kin thrived there. That small variation on previously tree living ancestors opened up a whole new set of opportunities.

All there is are just a few random bones, and early tools prove humans had them, but does not prove ape-men.

Wolves are part of the dog family, and the domestic dog is a mutation through subtraction of wolf genetic code and leaving other genetic material that resulted in different breeds of dog that resulted. So this does not mean that wolves evolved from other creature families, or that they evolved into other creature types than dogs.

The lack of complete skeletons and fossils doesn't prove that "Lucy" even existed.

 

[Shemjaza]

All there is are just a few random bones, and early tools prove humans had them, but does not prove ape-men.

We have hundreds of fossils of creatures that are clearly not human and not anything like modern apes.

From locations and periods without evidence of modern humans.

Wolves are part of the dog family, and the domestic dog is a mutation through subtraction of wolf genetic code and leaving other genetic material that resulted in different breeds of dog that resulted. So this does not mean that wolves evolved from other creature families, or that they evolved into other creature types than dogs.

That's not how genetics works. The genes that define dogs don't exist in wolves. Mutations add code and they add information.

The lack of complete skeletons and fossils doesn't prove that "Lucy" even existed.

Wait? Do you honestly think that unless there's a complete skeleton you can't prove something existed?

Do you think that's reasonable?

We have multiple skulls, hips, even feet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All there is are just a few random bones, and early tools prove humans had them, but does not prove ape-men.

Wolves are part of the dog family, and the domestic dog is a mutation through subtraction of wolf genetic code and leaving other genetic material that resulted in different breeds of dog that resulted. So this does not mean that wolves evolved from other creature families, or that they evolved into other creature types than dogs.

The lack of complete skeletons and fossils doesn't prove that "Lucy" even existed.

There is far more than that, but until you take the time to learn what evidence is you are in no position to ask for any evidence.

I hope that others join me in invoking my Rule Number One. Since evidence that has been posted places the burden of proof upon the person that denies it, any poster that repeatedly denies scientific evidence should not be given any more evidence until he or she demonstrates that he or she understands the topic.

We can discuss evidence and the scientific method, both concepts that you do not understand, without bringing up evolution if you wish. That will be done after you get the basics down.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

We have hundreds of fossils of creatures that are clearly not human and not anything like modern apes.

From locations and periods without evidence of modern humans.


That's not how genetics works. The genes that define dogs don't exist in wolves. Mutations add code and they add information.


Wait? Do you honestly think that unless there's a complete skeleton you can't prove something existed?

Do you think that's reasonable?

We have multiple skulls, hips, even feet.

Got any photographs to show the fossils? Yes, plenty of skulls, hips and feet, but no complete skeletons to match the skulls with the hips and the feet, or even to show that the skulls are human or even part human. What skulls have been discovered are either clearly ape, or human, but not half in half. The human foot is totally different from an ape foot, so the foot bones are either ape or human, but none have been found to have both characteristics in the same foot.

So, a reasonable doubt remains.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

There is far more than that, but until you take the time to learn what evidence is you are in no position to ask for any evidence.

I hope that others join me in invoking my Rule Number One. Since evidence that has been posted places the burden of proof upon the person that denies it, any poster that repeatedly denies scientific evidence should not be given any more evidence until he or she demonstrates that he or she understands the topic.

We can discuss evidence and the scientific method, both concepts that you do not understand, without bringing up evolution if you wish. That will be done after you get the basics down.

For your information, I am not some 14 year old who came down in the last shower. I have seen all the available evidence and none of it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that evolutionary development is scientifically possible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Got any photographs to show the fossils? Yes, plenty of skulls, hips and feet, but no complete skeletons to match the skulls with the hips and the feet, or even to show that the skulls are human or even part human. What skulls have been discovered are either clearly ape, or human, but not half in half. The human foot is totally different from an ape foot, so the foot bones are either ape or human, but none have been found to have both characteristics in the same foot.

So, a reasonable doubt remains.

Nope. only unreasonable doubt.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

For your information, I am not some 14 year old who came down in the last shower. I have seen all the available evidence

No you haven't. That's another of your ridiculous assertions.

and none of it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that evolutionary development is scientifically possible.

Has anyone ever told you that science doesn't prove things? Simple yes/no answer please.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Nope. only unreasonable doubt.

All you have to do is to show one itty bitty piece of conclusive evidence that one creature has developed into another through time and chance, and that the change can be replicated through scientific experimentation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For your information, I am not some 14 year old who came down in the last shower. I have seen all the available evidence and none of it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that evolutionary development is scientifically possible.

Please, then don't act like one. You do not understand the concept of evidence so you are unable apply it. You only have unreasonable doubt maintained by willful ignorance.

I can understand your fear. You are rightfully afraid that you could not repeat your claims if you understood the scientific method and the concept of evidence without lying and you do not want to lie. Not wanting to lie is a good thing. But sacrificing integrity to do so ends up making it a loss either way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All you have to do is to show one itty bitty piece of conclusive evidence that one creature has developed into another through time and chance, and that the change can be replicated through scientific experimentation.

Rule Number One.

How quickly they do forget. You brought it on yourself. You have been shown evidence, you denied it and ran away. That evidence placed a burden of proof upon you. You have to show that the evidence is wrong.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

All you have to do is to show one itty bitty piece of conclusive evidence that one creature has developed into another through time and chance, and that the change can be replicated through scientific experimentation.

Get a DNA test done on yourself and your father or son.

Then get another test done. Let us know what the results of those repeated experiments are.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

No you haven't. That's another of your ridiculous assertions.

Has anyone ever told you that science doesn't prove things? Simple yes/no answer please.

Science proves things that are provable. If you are going to accuse me of making ridiculous assertions, then prove it by one item of evidence of evolutionary change from one creature to another. Just one!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Get a DNA test done on yourself and your father or son.

Then get another test done. Let us know what the results of those repeated experiments are.

All they will prove is that we are of the same human family. No evolutionary development there.