does evolution exsist

[leopold]

If you do not wish further emotive attacks respond to the frigging points when they are raised, or leave the forum permanently.

chill out homeboy, relax.
give me some time to think about this.
i am at a serious disadvantage in not knowing the fossil record like the back of my hand, all i can rely on is what other people say about the subject.
we both know how reliable that is.

edit
i believe your experiment is invalid.
are there any living examples of your experiment?
for example are there any humans that can be classified as either human or ape?
it seems to me that there should be at least a few living examples of your experiment.
i can think of one, the platypus, but this probably can be classified in a number of different ways.
any others?

 

[Ophiolite]

edit
i believe your experiment is invalid.
are there any living examples of your experiment?
for example are there any humans that can be classified as either human or ape?
it seems to me that there should be at least a few living examples of your experiment.
i can think of one, the platypus, but this probably can be classified in a number of different ways.
any others?

For ****'s sake! Aren't you listening? Are your great-great grandparents living? No. But you are one of their descedants and they likely have several other descendants many of whom are not known to you. Yes those others are still human, but they are not quite the same as you. Imagine that they became separated from you by emigrating to Mars and that we then lost the technology to maintain contact with the colony. Do you not see that in many generations, through many small changes, they would come to be quite different from them and they would become quite different from us.

Do you also not understand that we are not descended from apes, but that apes and ourselves are descended from an ape like ancestor. It is just a prpoer to say that apes are descended from men, since our ancestor of several million years ago is about as much like a human as it is like an ape.

 

[Billy T]

Leopold99. ...What are you thoughts on this?

Leopold99 does not have "thoughts" - he is not capable of that so it seems. He spouts his preformed and unchangeable opinions.

 

[leopold]

Do you not see that in many generations, through many small changes, they would come to be quite different from them and they would become quite different from us.

i understand perfectly well what you are trying to say.
but there is nothing that says this is actually the case.
there is no scientific test which proves it, and this is what i am trying to stress to you. i am not a guppy ophiolite i don't swallow the stuff just because someone "says so".
if i said "god did it" you would do two things:
1. laugh your balls off.
then
2. ask for the scientific evidence.
well i'm not laughing but i do want the scientific evidence of what is being passed around as the truth.
what tests have been performed to support what has been said here?

before someone starts throwing out stuff like the grants finches:

A conference of scientists at the Field Museum of Natural History (Chicago) in October, 1980,
was convened to thrash out the issues of Darwinian evolution. The meeting considered whether the
mechanisms of micro-evolution (mutation and natural selection) gradually produced enough change to
cause macro-evolution. Their final analysis was "NO!".
-science, vol. 210 no. 4472 pp: 883-887

let me also point out that the law of biogenesis was established long ago by thousands of scientists all across the globe. to my knowledge this law has not been refuted.

remember happeh?
remember how he made some observations and pointed out to us his conclusions?
we thought he was a cornball. why?
because he didn't provide the scientific evidence of what he was saying

 

[spidergoat]

That sounds like a fake quote.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Quote debunked: apparently it's been taken out of context -
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100110182207AALk14z

 

[leopold]

Quote debunked: apparently it's been taken out of context -
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100110182207AALk14z

from the transcript:
At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.

google the reference and read it yourself.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

google the reference and read it yourself.

You are a loathsome disingenuous troll with no integrity. One would think that if you wanted to display some academic integrity you might obtain and read the source article in question. But no, you would rather scan the internet for out-of-context quotations that appear to support your uneducated position.

I have a subscription to Science and had a quick read of the original article in question, not some third-hand Google reference to it. Here is the original quotation in context:

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. what is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally uncoupled from macroevolution: the two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap.

This meeting was to discuss what is known as the “Modern Synthesis”, the prevailing paradigm to explain evolutionary change. This theory says that change is slow and results from gradual small changes, and that macroevolution is merely lots of microevolution over lots of time.

The discussions coming out of this meeting were around the ideas that the Modern Synthesis cannot fully explain macroevolution in this way and that some separate mechanisms must underlie micro- and macroevolution, such as rapid change along the lines of Gould's punctuated equilibrium. In no way does this article deny microevolution, macroevolution or any other evolutionary mechanism. It merely discusses mechanisms.

So, might I suggest you read it for yourself? Of course, I know you wouldn’t because you’re not interested in displaying any integrity. Selective quote mining is so much easier.

 

[leopold]

You are a loathsome disingenuous troll with no integrity. One would think that if you wanted to display some academic integrity you might obtain and read the source article in question.

i DID read the article. where do you think i got the quote in #247 from.

But no, you would rather scan the internet for out-of-context quotations that appear to support your uneducated position.

stop assuming shit you dirt bag.
better yet just go away.

 

[spidergoat]

Even still, it's an argument from authority. leopold99 is assuming that since some sciency people may have said they don't think the mechanisms of evolution really are the origin of the species, that means we have to accept it. The whole mis-use of the term micro and macro is unscientific.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

whoever has a problem with a simple word like evolution. Probably does not want to evolve.

 

[chimpkin]

Would you like some observed speciation incidents?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

The guy's got a good list.

 

[leopold]

there is a surprising lack of objective websites on this matter.
every single one of them either pushes evolution or creation.
this, in my opinion, makes it virtually impossible to get to the truth of the matter.

spidergoat:
unscientific? replacing an established scientific law with a theory that has no test is the epitome of unscientific buddy.

 

[leopold]

neo-darwinism falsified in the lab
To test neo-Darwinian evolution in a microcosm, Rafael Sanjuán, Andrés Moya, and Santiago F. Elena worked with RNA viruses: organisms with a small, compact genomes that should respond quickly and noticeably to mutations. The team was looking for epistatic interactions: i.e., the effects of multiple independent (non-allelic) mutations on each other, rather than the effects of single mutations alone. These interactions can be antagonistic or synergistic: they can work against one another or with one another. Epistasis is defined as “any interaction of nonallelic genes, especially the suppression by one gene of the effect of a nonallelic gene.” Of note in this paper are the opening lines in the abstract that tell how rarely this important concept has been studied before (read: never):

The tendency for genetic architectures to exhibit epistasis among mutations plays a central role in the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology and in theoretical descriptions of many evolutionary processes. Nevertheless, few studies unquestionably show whether, and how, mutations typically interact. Beneficial mutations are especially difficult to identify because of their scarcity. Consequently, epistasis among pairs of this important class of mutations has, to our knowledge, never before been explored.

the last sentence is of particular importance because it states these experiments were never conducted before.
two classes of experiments were performed.
here are the results:

Interactions among genome components should be of special relevance in compacted genomes such as those of RNA viruses. To tackle these issues, we first generated 47 genotypes of vesicular stomatitis virus carrying pairs of nucleotide substitution mutations whose separated and combined deleterious effects on fitness were determined. Several pairs exhibited significant interactions for fitness, including antagonistic and synergistic epistasis. Synthetic lethals represented 50% of the latter. In a second set of experiments, 15 genotypes carrying pairs of beneficial mutations were also created. In this case, all significant interactions were antagonistic. Our results show that the architecture of the fitness depends on complex interactions among genome components.

in other words none of the pairs of mutations were beneficial and synergistic.

source - Rafael Sanjuán, Andrés Moya, and Santiago F. Elena, “Evolution: The contribution of epistasis to the architecture of fitness in an RNA virus,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 10.1073/pnas.0404125101, Published online before print October 18, 2004.

 

[leopold]

can anyone explain the following link to me?
http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/audios/c010.htm

 

[James R]

leopold99:

the material agreed with the other two links i posted. are they liars too?

If they got their material from answersingenesis, then very probably yes.

i do know this much though evolution holds great promise on the outside but when you start to do some thinking about it it becomes logically unsound, even to the point of going against established natural laws.

It doesn't sound like you've done much thinking.

You keep avoiding responding to post #225. Why? Don't you have answers to the simple questions I put to you there? Are you afraid? Or are you turning a blind eye to something you find uncomfortable?

i am not interested in debunking creationism or evolution.

No? A moment ago you said that evolution was "logically unsound". That's a claim you need to back up with .... er... logic. Don't you think?

Oh wait! Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Maybe you actually don't want to debunk evolution. You just want to believe that it is false and to say that it is false, without ever looking for evidence of its truth or falsity. Is that it? You're not out to prove or disprove it, because you've already made up your mind that it's wrong. In other words, you're telling me that you have an unsupported faith or hope that evolution is false, and you don't care about the truth or falsity of your faith or beliefs.

Have I got that right?

Humor me then, by answering the questions I posed to you in post #225. They should be easy for an expert such as yourself to answer.

don't patronize me james.
all i want is answers that are scientifically verified.
science has never witnessed the 2 conditions i mentioned.

All I want is for you to honestly answer a few simple questions I put to you in post #225. Doing that would take you less time and effort than finding new ways to prevaricate and avoid the issue I put to you, wouldn't it? Or, could it be that you don't have any answers even to simple questions?

Nonsense. Surely other people here have already pointed out at least 10 transitional fossils to you. Hell, a simple google search for "transitional fossils" will find you many reliable pages on the subject.

then why does the museum link i posted say different?

Which museum? You found a museum that believes there are no transitional fossils? It's not the creationist museum, is it?

and let's not forget the various frauds that have been associated with the fossil record.

You mean those frauds that were uncovered by scientists such as paleotologists? The frauds of the creationists? Or what?

 

[James R]

can anyone explain the following link to me?
http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/audios/c010.htm

Yeah.

It's a link to a site that is a front for Intelligent Design supporters who are closet creationists. The main advisers for the site, as the site acknowledges, include William Dembski and Michael Behe, both ID proponents whose work was thoroughly debunked in the Kizmiller trial of ID in Dover, Pennsylvania.

You ought to read up on that episode, leopold99. Most interesting.

 

[leopold]

leopold99:



Ok. Let me give you an analogy. Here's an imaginary creature made of letters:

1. XXXAXXBYXBXC

Biologists classify this letter-creature as being of the "X" species, because the creature consists mostly of the letter X.

Here are several generations of offspring of our X creature. From each generation, I am displaying only one of the offspring. Then, in the next generation, I display one of the offspring of that creature, and so on.

2. XYXAXXBYXBXC
3. XYXCYXBYXBXC
4. XYXCYXBYXXXC
5. XYXCYXBYXXXY
6. XYXCYXBYYXXY
7. XYXCYABYYXXY
8. XYXCYYBYYXXY
9. BYYCYYBYYXXY
10. BYYCYYBYYXXY

Notice that microevolution has occurred at each generation. In other words, one or two letters have mutated in each generation.

Biologists call generation 10 the "Y" species, because letter-creatures of this species consist mostly of the letter Y.

Now, here are a few questions for you.

* At which generation number, did the X-species parents produce a Y-species offspring? Did that ever happen?
* What species is generation 6?
* Did any "macroevolution" occur here between generations 1 and 10, according to you?
* Did microevolutionary steps here add up to a macroevolutionary step at some point in the process? If not, why not?

the answer james is "i don't know".
this is what you call a "mind experiment", great for getting your point across, useless as evidence.

 

[leopold]

Yeah.

It's a link to a site that is a front for Intelligent Design supporters who are closet creationists. The main advisers for the site, as the site acknowledges, include William Dembski and Michael Behe, both ID proponents whose work was thoroughly debunked in the Kizmiller trial of ID in Dover, Pennsylvania.

You ought to read up on that episode, leopold99. Most interesting.

regardless of where it came from it presents one of evolutions most ardent supporters denying evolution.

 

[leopold]

You ought to read up on that episode, leopold99. Most interesting.

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
i didn't read the entire document but what i did read leads me to believe the case was won solely on legal grounds, not because of any evidence, or lack of evidence.