The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

[pitabread]

Try to remember what the thread is about, and get back on subject, otherwise there is not much sense in posting here.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice. You never addressed the material posted by the OP.

 

[xianghua]

Universal common ancestry is a fact.

no its not.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Yeah, Kenny, I know you don't believe it. Practically every Young Earth Creationist I've seen comment on it accepts (some reluctantly, many enthusiastically) microevolution. But good old Kenny, he's rock solid. Atheist biologists are wrong! Agnostic biologists are wrong! Christian biologists are wrong! Young Earth Creationist's view of biology is wrong! The whole dratted cabal of biologists and Christians is wrong. Kenny knows best!

Making fun of me is no substitute for proof of evolution, it amounts to just another excuse.

Who is "we"?

People in general.

You don't even know what science is or how it works. You sure as heck aren't doing anything with it.

I don't even know what science is now? Hilarious, and what a stretch. Surely you are still capable of knowing just how desperate that sounds? A completely false accusation because it's all you have to defend yourself with since you cannot prove evolution. IOW, one of the many excuses you all have now resorted to because you now know you cannot prove evolution. I'm beginning to think you all like hearing the very sad truth abut your lost cause.

What is science?

Perhaps you should follow your own advice. You never addressed the material posted by the OP.

Have you gone through the thread to see if that is true?

Either way, the thread is about evidence for evolution, something I have addressed. But I've no doubt you will try to squeeze something against me from nothing, it's all you all have for defense these days. Check out the to the affect of "You don't know what science is" comment if you don't believe me.

Now the OP does bring up the question, if supposed little whale legs are evidence for evolution, where are all the those transitional "little legs" or whatever is left over from the already evolved or present on their way to evolving? Just about every form of life should have something or actuality several somethings hanging off them as left overs yet to be absorbed, or new parts yet to evolve. Again, where are they all?

Seems the best you can do is concluding mysterious bones on whales are what's left of legs when there is argument they aren't that at all...depends on who one chooses to believe. So in the scheme of things, considering all the transitional parts we should see, that and a few other claims are all you claim to have? Something is bad wrong there

Are we to believe that, at this point in time, every single animal just happens to be at a stage where there are no extras present? The fact there are little to none by comparison to what there should be, all alone flies in the face of evolution.

I'd love to here the usual excuses on this.

 

[HitchSlap]

no its not.

It's a demonstrable fact. It's not my problem if your religion forces you to reject basic principles of science.

 

[Ophiolite]

Making fun of me is no substitute for proof of evolution, it amounts to just another excuse.

I'm sorry you thought I was making fun of you. I was pointing out, as vigorously as good taste permitted, how isolated you are with your views on evolution. The vast majority of your fellow Christians disagree with you, most notably the ones who have studied the matter.

I applaud your courage in standing almost alone, with no evidence to support you. It's certainly a position that can invite mockery so I'm not annoyed that you misunderstood my intent.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm sorry you thought I was making fun of you.

Why? I'm certain you were, so what you say makes no sense. Besides, I'm not the least but sorry, it only worked against you, and that's not a problem.

I applaud your courage in standing almost alone, with no evidence to support you.

Nope I don't do like you all and present what you "call" evidence as reason to conclude evolution is a fact. Only the simple would buy such a thing. I would prefer to not insult the intelligence, at least of those who have some, and go with actual proof, so how bout you, got any?

If you think shaky evidence is all that's needed then you should be even more interested in somewhat solid evidence like the following, and I repeat:

Now the OP does bring up the question, if supposed little whale legs are evidence for evolution, where are all the those transitional "little legs" or whatever is left over from the already evolved or present on their way to evolving? Just about every form of life should have something or actuality several somethings hanging off them as left overs yet to be absorbed, or new parts yet to evolve. Again, where are they all?

Seems the best you can do is concluding mysterious bones on whales are what's left of legs when there is argument they aren't that at all...depends on who one chooses to believe. So in the scheme of things, considering all the transitional parts we should see, that and a few other claims are all you claim to have? Something is bad wrong there

Are we to believe that, at this point in time, every single animal just happens to be at a stage where there are no extras present? The fact there are little to none by comparison to what there should be, all alone flies in the face of evolution.

I'd love to here the usual excuses on this.

I'm actually just as happy the comments were avoided, but maybe you'd like to touch on that since no one else will? D?o you consider that evidence? Can you prove me wrong about that in general? Or do you agree, something doesn't make sense there?

 

[Ophiolite]

Why? I'm certain you were, so what you say makes no sense. Besides, I'm not the least but sorry, it only worked against you, and that's not a problem.

Since you've chosen to call me a liar I'll be leaving you to your own devices.

Before I go, this: You repeatedly demand that evolutionists prove evolution. You have repeatedly been told by many members, atheist, Christian and agnostic, that science does not deal in proof, but in the construction of powerful explanatory theories, of which the Theory of Evolution is one of the most powerful. Despite this you continue to return,as you have done here, and demand proof. You are corrected again. You ignore it again, delivering snide, provocative, even nasty comments. You are corrected again. You continue your demands as if nothing had happened. I don't think any of that is lying on your part, but it is ugly, it is unbecoming and it casts you in a very poor light indeed.

We are asked, commanded even, by forum rules to respect other members. I regret, in this instance, that is beyond my capacity. I imagine that won't bother you one little bit, though it upsets me quite a lot.

 

[xianghua]

It's a demonstrable fact.

so you can show me how a fish evolving into a reptile and monkey into human etc?. where?

 

[Yttrium]

so you can show me how a fish evolving into a reptile and monkey into human etc?. where?

Not only is that a non-sequitur, it asks for something that evolution doesn't do. Good job!

 

[xianghua]

Not only is that a non-sequitur, it asks for something that evolution doesn't do. Good job!

he said that its :"a demonstrable fact.". so now we see that its not.

 

[Yttrium]

he said that its :"a demonstrable fact.". so now we see that its not.

He said that it's a demonstable fact that there's evidence to support the theory of evolution. He didn't say that the theory is a fact, or that we have every piece of possible evidence. We have a great deal of evidence supporting the theory, including evidence in genetics, morphologies of modern organisms, ancient fossils, etc.

Don't move the bar from some evidence to all possible evidence. That's a leap to a silly extreme.

 

[USincognito]

no its not.

You have demonstrated that you are in no position to determine whether it is or not. Please reserve your comments to self-replicating dishwashers and other such nonsense.

 

[USincognito]

Making fun of me is no substitute for proof of evolution

1. Someone seems to have forgotten what thread this is.
2. We have corrected you numerous times on "proof". The fact that you continue to use "proof" in this subforum is tantamount to trolling at this point.

People in general.

You must have forgotten your original claim.
>> That's what we do with science, prove things yet some have the very bizarre audacity to say it proves nothing. <<

So your claim is that people in general use science to prove things?

I don't even know what science is now? Hilarious, and what a stretch. Surely you are still capable of knowing just how desperate that sounds?

Your continued insistence that science proves things is more than sufficient evidence that you don't understand anything about science.

A completely false accusation because it's all you have to defend yourself with since you cannot prove evolution. IOW, one of the many excuses you all have now resorted to because you now know you cannot prove evolution.

1. Again, you seem to be forgetting that this is the evidence for evolution for Kenny's ID thread. The one were you were presented with numerous lines of evidence supporting evolution and you either ignored or ran away from them and then lied later in the thread insisting you had addressed all of them. Your behavior borders on the pathological sometimes.
2. We have corrected you numerous times on "proof". The fact that you continue to use "proof" in this subforum is tantamount to trolling at this point.

Either way, the thread is about evidence for evolution, something I have addressed.

Horsefeathers! You never addressed any of the evidence presented. Any honest person can go back and see that fact. If you think you somehow addressed any of the content in the first seven posts, then go back and quote the message where you supposedly did so.

Now the OP does bring up the question, if supposed little whale legs are evidence for evolution, where are all the those transitional "little legs" or whatever is left over from the already evolved or present on their way to evolving? Just about every form of life should have something or actuality several somethings hanging off them as left overs yet to be absorbed, or new parts yet to evolve. Again, where are they all?

The OP not only discusses embryonic hind limb buds developing and then absorbing back into the body, but it discusses the Shh/Hand2 pathway for hind limb development.

Seems the best you can do is concluding mysterious bones on whales are what's left of legs when there is argument they aren't that at all...depends on who one chooses to believe.

We don't have "mysterious bones". They might be mysterious to you, but they're not mysterious to anyone who has a functioning brain. This is a femur, tibia, tarsus and metatarsal found on a humpback whale in 1919.

So we have hind limb buds in utero, which develop because cetaceans have a vestigial Shh/Hand2 gene pathway, and we have found a whale atavistic hind leg bones.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Horsefeathers! You never addressed any of the evidence presented. Any honest person can go back and see that fact. If you think you somehow addressed any of the content in the first seven posts, then go back and quote the message where you supposedly did so.

Of course I did, indication I disagree your evidence does what you are claiming it does, is me addressing it. What did you want, to take each word of your post and disagree with them separately?

It's untrue claims like that that caused me not to answer all that came before this in you post because they are the same old untrue accusations as usual and a complete waste of time to keep addressing over and over again. "If ya can't beat em just stop being truthful and pretend you have" right?

The OP not only discusses embryonic hind limb buds developing and then absorbing back into the body, but it discusses the Shh/Hand2 pathway for hind limb development.

Then you are saying that's why we see so little evidence of transition because their body just by coincidence sucked up all the transition in and transition out evidence just before they virtually ALL died? Are you listening to yourself? I assumed something happened to them eventually, but what about before eventually came around? Where are the as many, actually many more in betweens before or after the resulting thing they evolved into?

You don't even come close to answering the post you're trying to answer.

We don't have "mysterious bones". The might be mysterious to you, but they're not mysterious to anyone who has a functioning brain. This is a femur, tibia, tarsus and metatarsal found on a humpback whale in 1919.

Oh they aren't mysterious because they are definitely what you say they are?....prove it. Oh, that's right, you've created a no need to prove anything...in your mind. Comes in handy doesn't it?

So we have hind limb buds in utero, which develop because cetaceans have a vestigial Shh/Hand2 gene pathway, and we have found a whale atavistic hind leg bones.

But where are all the fossils that show the little legs before they got so little? Those several in between stages of shorter, shorter yet, and even shorter? Let's not conveniently forget about that. You wanted me to address your claims so there ya go, as if I haven't already done so.

 

[USincognito]

Of course I did,{snip}

No you did not. If you think you did, then quote those posts. Put up or be shown to be a liar.

Then you are saying that's why we see so little evidence of transition because their body just by coincidence sucked up all the transition in and transition out evidence just before they virtually ALL died? Are you listening to yourself? I assumed something happened to them eventually, but what about before eventually came around? Where are the as many, actually many more in betweens before or after the resulting thing they evolved into?

Anyone reading this thread, please tell me if this talking in circles made any sense to you because it's just gibberish that doesn't address hind limbs on embryonic cetaceans or how the Shh/Hand2 pathway explains why they have hind limb buds (and sometimes develop atavistic legs).

Oh they aren't mysterious because they are definitely what you say they are?....prove it. Oh, that's right, you've created a no need to prove anything...in your mind. Comes in handy doesn't it?

Like I said, they're not mysterious to anyone with a functioning brain.

But where are all the fossils that show the little legs before they got so little? Those several in between stages of shorter, shorter yet, and even shorter? Let's not conveniently forget about that. You wanted me to address your claims so there ya go, as if I haven't already done so.

Your ignorance apparently knows no bounds. Not only do you not comprehend the embryological and genetic evidence for hind limbs I've presented, you can't comprehend that fossils are not the only evidence we have for evolution. But since you're being such a smart mouth.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No you did not. If you think you did, then quote those posts. Put up or be shown to be a liar.

I told you what I thought of the OP just a few posts in. That was addressing it.

The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

Now, you tell me, what I would have to say in order to appease you, in that you would consider it addressed?

Like I said, they're not mysterious to anyone with a functioning brain.

They don't look like legs to me. So who do I believe here, those that say they are an aid in reproduction, or you, who tells me whales used you to walk on land?

Your ignorance apparently knows no bounds. Not only do you not comprehend the embryological and genetic evidence for hind limbs I've presented, you can't comprehend that fossils are not the only evidence we have for evolution. But since you're being such a smart mouth.

Because I'm being such a "smart mouth"...what?
Are pictures of different animals there suppose to be my punishment for being a smart mouth?

Now lets talk aboiut "*my* ignorance"

Are you actually claiming animals from what you claim are millions of years apart are all the same animal evolving, especially when there is no evolving going on there?

You have what you "say" are legs on one and all the rest are fully legged...not the least bit convincing. Where are the in betweens I asked for? The legs hanging off of or being dragged behind these animals who have not completely evolved, or residuals attached to the ones that are devolving? There would have to be several stages, and that would make for some funky looking animals, of which we definitely should by your reasoning, but see nothing of the sort running around today or in the fossil record, not nearly enough to speak of anyway. Or did they just happen to stop evolving right about the time there are people around to question things?

I told you before it would fall flat of it's face, yet you force me to do this instead of just accepting a kinder "I just don't buy it"

Happy now?

Or will you be dismissing all I said as me being a "smart mouth"? Gotta love how that comment always comes from someone who has nowhere else to turn, but to place meaningless blame.. I'm not doing anything but disagreeing with you, and explaining why, and one need not even be the "smart" part to see the obvious problems with your presentation.

"I don't know anything about science?"
Please, don't even try that again. A person needs little more than common sense to see you are wrong here, at least until you can come up with something to explain the shortcomings, and no one here needs a degree to listen to you explain that to us. Overactive imagination that overlooks so much in order to reach a very bogus conclusion, and I honestly don't see how so-called intelligent scientists can see what you are claiming here is evidence at all for evolution.

You wonder why I ask for proof? Prove these are the same animals evolving when they show absolutely no evidence of evolving...none. You have 4 same land animals and a whale, and attempt to link them/bring the illusion home with no more than for all we know completely fake legs. Even if they were legs, you got NO INBETWEENS. Where are the, short, shorter legs, stages of fins, the blow holes beginning out of the top of the the land animals head? There is no transitioning there at all, just a whale.

Anyone who buys what you claim is happening here as proof or even evidence of evolution, is entirely too gullible.

 

[Kenny'sID]

We don't have "mysterious bones". They might be mysterious to you, but they're not mysterious to anyone who has a functioning brain. This is a femur, tibia, tarsus and metatarsal found on a humpback whale in 1919.

I missed that.

Seems to me a "functioning brain" would present proof of such an outrageous claim.

Got proof?

Hope so because i don't believe a word of it, and it's all i can do to keep from laughing.

 

[JCFantasy23]

MOD HAT ON


Staff has voted to leave this thread closed. There have been a lot of issues with flaming spread over several pages. Please remember the flaming rules during debate.


MOD HAT OFF​