Thread to collect Evolutionist Lies.

[Metal Minister]

We can add this post to the list of creationist lies as well.

Historical evolution is testable, demonstrable, and can be falsified:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Really...as soon as I saw the talk origins in the url I knew it was crap...

 

[Loudmouth]

Really...as soon as I saw the talk origins in the url I knew it was crap...

Sticking your head in the sand will not make the evidence go away. Each section describes how evolution was tested, how the evidence demonstrates evolution in the past, and what evidence would falsify evolution in the past.

Check out the section on pseudogenes:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#pseudogenes

 

[Jamin4422]

You just failed to provide the name of a single person that changed the definition of evolution

No one has changed the definition sense Darwin. He created a great skism between Science and Religion. Still there is no conflict between Science and the Bible. As much as Science is able to test the validity of the Bible. I have no problem with the concept that God is not a law breaker and that He follows all the natural laws of Physics. Even though man really does not understand those laws. For example we read in our Bible about Joshua and the walls of Jericho. We are told that the walls came tumbling down. If you go to the ruins of Jericho the wall is still on the ground. The walls of Jericho were never rebuilt. It was an earthquake that brought the walls down, because Jericho sits on a fault line between two continental plates. The point being that the Bible story can be explained using the natural laws of Physics. The question then becomes: How well do you understand the laws of Physics? Anyways, God is NOT a law breaker. He does not break the laws that He established. In fact He establishes the laws and in some cased He will fix and repair what has been broken.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Really...as soon as I saw the talk origins in the url I knew it was crap...

Yeah, who needs talkorigins and their gigantic, critically robust catalog of evidence with links to primary scientific literature. Willful ignorance is the way to go.

 

[Metal Minister]

Sticking your head in the sand will not make the evidence go away. Each section describes how evolution was tested, how the evidence demonstrates evolution in the past, and what evidence would falsify evolution in the past.

Check out the section on pseudogenes:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#pseudogenes

I see..too bad you don't put as much effort into the "peer review" aspect of talk origins as you do with "creationist" web sites...you understand there are rebuttals from the other side on everything on that website right?

 

[Loudmouth]

Anyways, God is NOT a law breaker. He does not break the laws that He established. In fact He establishes the laws and in some cased He will fix and repair what has been broken.

And the evidence for this is . . . ?

 

[Loudmouth]

I see..too bad you don't put as much effort into the "peer review" aspect of talk origins as you do with "creationist" web sites...you understand there are rebuttals from the other side on everything on that website right?

There are attempts at rebuttals, yes, but they fail miserably.

The fact of the matter is that historical evolution is testable, demonstrable, and potentially falsifiable. The Talkorigins site demonstrates this in spades. It is a lie to claim otherwise.

 

[Jamin4422]

So, what then? You make asinine, false claims that can be refuted with forty-five seconds worth of research just for fun?

Wow what irony, prove me wrong dude. If YOU can not prove me wrong then guess who is making the false claims?

 

[Jamin4422]

Check out the section on pseudogenes:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4

WAIT! In the very first sentence it says: "genealogical relatedness of all life." No one is making an argument against the theory of "the genealogical relatedness of all life." Our argument is against Darwin's theory of "descent with modification." Again your evidence does nothing to support your theory. In fact the argument you present is just the opposite because of a discussion of Ubiquitous or common Genes that all life has. There is no modification there at all.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Wow what irony, prove me wrong dude. If YOU can not prove me wrong then guess who is making the false claims?

You were already answered by another poster.

If you're actually interested in educating yourself, there is not one claim against evolution you made in that post that can't be found here An Index to Creationist Claims

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Of course, none of the responses are going to make sense if you lack a rudimentary understanding of the ToE to begin with.

 

[OllieFranz]

WAIT! In the very first sentence it says: "genealogical relatedness of all life." No one is making an argument against the theory of "the genealogical relatedness of all life." Our argument is against Darwin's theory of "descent with modification." Again your evidence does nothing to support your theory.

The distinction you are making is meaningless. Saying my cousin and I are genetically related is the same vhing as saying we are descended from a common genetic ancestor (in this case, our common grandfather).

The only ways that the two statements are not equivalent is if I can find someone I can prove unequivocally shares no common ancestor with me, no matter how far back we go but whose genetics show to be a relative, or conversely find a cousin with a common ancestor but no genetic relatedness.

On the grander scale, you seem to be claiming the first, that some organism, let's say a cockroach, is genetically related to us but you can prove there is no common ancestor.

OK, then, prove it. It doesn't have to be a cockroach. Whatever organism you had in mind when you made the claim will do. In any case, present this genetic relative of ours and show how we can know there is no common ancestor.

 

[Loudmouth]

WAIT! In the very first sentence it says: "genealogical relatedness of all life." No one is making an argument against the theory of "the genealogical relatedness of all life." Our argument is against Darwin's theory of "descent with modification." Again your evidence does nothing to support your theory. In fact the argument you present is just the opposite because of a discussion of Ubiquitous or common Genes that all life has. There is no modification there at all.

The modification is the redundant pseudogenes themselves. These are produced by gene duplication and subsequent mutation of the duplication. This results in neutral selection of mutations in the duplicate which can be traced through lineages. It is descent with modification through and through.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

There are attempts at rebuttals, yes, but they fail miserably.

Yeah, creationwiki has an index of 'responses' to talkorigins. It's a black hole of lies, logical fallacies and good ol-fashioned stupidity. I can't look at that site for more than a few minutes before I feel brain begin to atrophy.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yeah, creationwiki has an index of 'responses' to talkorigins. It's a black hole of stupidity. I can't look at that site for more than a few minutes before I feel brain begin to atrophy.

Ashby Camp's response to the 29+ evidences is pretty bad as well:

- A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -

It is nothing more than straight out denial.

 

[Jamin4422]

The distinction you are making is meaningless.

Ok, it is meaningless. Have a nice day.

 

[Split Rock]

Really...as soon as I saw the talk origins in the url I knew it was crap...

It is a sign of how good the talkorigins archive is that creationists like yourself try so hard to villainize it.

 

[Aggie]

He does no such thing, I have the book.

I'm going to quote exactly what Mayr says about this, so there can be no confusion.

Darwin's views on evolution are often referred to as the The Darwinian Theory. Actually they consist of a number of different theories that are best understood when clearly distinguished from each other. The most important of Darwin's theories of evolution are discussed below. That they were indeed five independent theories is documented by the fact that the leading "Darwinians" among Darwins contemporaries accepted some and rejected others.

Two of these five theories, evolution as such as the theory of common descent, were widely accepted by biologists within a few years of the publication of the Origin. This represented the first Darwinian revolution. The acceptance of man as a primate in the animal kingdom was a particularly revolutionary step. Three other theories, gradualism, speciation and natural selection, were strongly resisted and were not generally accepted until the evolutionary synthesis. This was the second Darwinian revolution.

On the following page, he has a table of which of Darwin's contemporaries accepted or rejected which of Darwin's theories. About this he says, "All of these authors accepted a fifth theory, that of evolution as opposed to a constant, unchanging world. They differed in accepting or rejecting some of Darwin's four other evolutionary theories."

Either Mayr is wrong or you are, and I think the second one is more likely.

It's fine to say that these are all mechanisms of evolution, or that there's no barrier to prevent them from working together to cause evolution on any scale. But to claim that it's not possible to accept some without accepting others is directly contradicting the point Mayr is making. I'm bothered by OllieFranz's suggestion that this shouldn't be pointed out because it makes it more difficult to demonstrate common descent to creationists. If we oversimplify the issue in order to make it easier for ourselves in debates, that's intellectually lazy.

 

[Jamin4422]

The distinction you are making is meaningless.

I really do not think you know what evolution is and why Christians have an objection to evolution. Why did Lyell NOT accept all of Darwin's beliefs?

 

[Jamin4422]

The modification is the redundant pseudogenes themselves. These are produced by gene duplication and subsequent mutation of the duplication. This results in neutral selection of mutations in the duplicate which can be traced through lineages. It is descent with modification through and through.

I am sorry, this is just not going to fly. Your talking about something that has become disfunctional as being clear evidence for evolution. This is also clear evidence for Creationism and the fall. As Creationists we still wait on God for redemption when everything that has become disfunctional will once again be restored to God plan and purpose. Redemption may not be something evolutionists talk about. But for Creationists redemption and restoration is very much a part of what they believe.

For people who do not want natural laws violated, you sure are quick to talk about DNA getting violated and becoming dysfunctional. This just reminds me to much of the junk DNA theory. If they are rethinking junk DNA then it is only a matter of time when they will be rethinking redundant DNA.