does evolution exsist

[Rav]

punctuated equilbria says changes happen over a few generations.

You obviously don't even understand punctuated equilibrium.

Philosopher Kim Sterelny claimed that Eldredge and Gould's "hypothesis has been misunderstood in two important ways. In some early discussions of the idea, the contrast between geological and ecological time was blurred. Hence, Gould and Eldredge were interpreted as making a very radical claim: species originate more or less overnight, in a single step. [But] Gould and Eldredge agree that the new structures are almost always assembled over a number of generations, rather than all at once by macromutation...So by 'rapidly', they mean rapidly by geologist's standards". So with a coarse and incomplete fossil record, "a speciation that took 50,000 years would seem instantaneous", relative to the several million years of a species' existence.

Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism, in the ecological sense of biological continuity. This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that "Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time.

Significant speciations still typically take tens of thousands of years and macroevolution (if we define it here as one species evolving into a radically different species) still takes millions of years.

 

[James R]

leopold99:

From your efforts in this thread, it looks to me like you've put yourself inside a personal blackout zone. The only opening that allows information in from the outside world is a letter box labelled "direct mail from creationist frauds".

Acknowledging only the half of the story you want to hear is intellectually dishonest, to say the least. What is your aim here? To shore up your shakey religious convictions, or to find the truth by learning something? Or are you trying to convert people to the cult of Creationism?

prove me wrong on the following statements:
science has never witnessed one lifeform changing into another such as a dog changing into a cat.

Wrong. A good counterexample is your parents producing you, a different lifeform from them, completely unique in that no other lifeform shares the same combination of genes that you have.

likewise, science has never demonstrated life coming from nonlife.

That has nothing to do with evolution, of course.

whatever gave you the impression i'm a theist?

Your reliance on creationist propaganda as if it was from the bible.

it isn't my intention of convincing anyone of anything.
my intention is pointing out the fraudulent bullshit paraded as the truth.

Arguing with a complete absence of knowledge of your opponents' case is very unlikely to convince anybody of anything. When you've only looked at one side of the argument, you start looking stupid as your opponents continually confront you with the other side that you have no answers to.

to say science knows evolution is a fact is nothing short of a lie.

Yeah, in the same way that the theory of gravity is a lie. Or the theory of a spherical Earth.

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.

Amazing! You actually refuse to think about the matter. Seldom do I come across people who are so absolutely closed-minded that they won't even try to get their head around a concept that is new to them.

Won't you even make an effort to try to answer the questions put to you in post #225, or else try to explain why the argument is flawed?

If post #225 is "great for getting your point across", did it sway your faith in creationist nonsense? It was a simple point, after all. Or didn't you understand it. I'm happy to answer questions if you actually didn't understand the point or the questions.

Post #225 isn't rocket science, leopold. It's a simple thought experiment. And yet, apparently it is quite beyond your abilities to either comprehend or even begin to answer the simple questions put there. I'm sure that I could put the same questions to a group of 8-year old kids and they'd do a better job on them than you've managed.

Your argument that anything that is too hard for your little brain doesn't count is not a very strong one, or a very convincing one, leopold. It smacks of hiding your head in the sand, sticking your fingers in your ears and singing loudly "I won't hear this. I won't here this. I'm not listening to you." It's petulant, childish, and dishonest.

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

If so, I'm sure that "ardent supporter" was taken out of context by the creationists. That is a common tactic of theirs.

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.

The Kitzmiller case is very well publicised. The evolutionary evidence put at the trial is mostly available online in full.

News flash: All legal cases are won on legal grounds. Evidence goes to establishing the validity of the legal grounds.

The evidence in that case was outright fraud by the ID proponents, as well as convincing debunking of the creationists' concept of Intelligent Design. The judge made particular comment on the dishonesty of the ID proponents' side of the case.

i might need to retract that james because on the outside evolution makes sense and its mechanisms seem sound. when you start thinking about it though you start asking for the evidence, the tests, which prove it and you find there simply isn't any. the fossil record does not prove evolution. this is why "punctuated equilibria" was introduced. some evolutionists even claim a bird was hatched from a reptile egg. how crazy is that?

Where do you get this stuff? Birds aren't reptiles. They are descendants of dinosaurs.

The fossil record supports evolution. So does biology, biogeography, genetics, geology and physics.

i hold evolutionists to the same flames as evolutionists hold creationists to.

You don't even understand evolution. You won't even look at the simplest of arguments, such as post #225, above. You can hardly hold a blowtorch to the feet of the evolutionists if you know nothing about it and are afraid to confront the most simple challenges to your position.

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

it's in one of the links i posted.

Yeah. I'm sure it is. Somewhere. At least, that's how you remember it. Mystery un-named science museum that doesn't believe in science. I believe you.

the one that comes to mind is "piltdown man".

You mean the fraud that was uncovered by scientists?

Ask any scientist or museum curator and they will tell you. Fossil fraud and fakes have become a huge problem in today's commercial fossil market. It is of utmost importance for both dealers and collectors to be able to determine if a fossil has been faked or parts of it fabricated. Here we have dedicated a separate section on this vital topic.

Since there are no fossil authentication services, no respected dealer guilds to support, and no books on the market explaining how to detect fake or restored fossils, the commercial fossil market requires the practice of CAVEAT EMPTOR, or "let the buyer beware".

How is this relevant to the theory of evolution?

Obviously, experts in fossils know a fake from a real one. Your link is about the commercial market, which is concerned with buying and selling fossils, often to people like you who couldn't tell a real fossil from a fake if it was labelled "Made in China".

 

[leopold]

What is your aim here?

to show that science has not conducted the in lab tests which prove evolution produced earths diversity of life.
i have repeatedly asked for the documented results only to be accused of being a (insert every vulgarity imaginable here).

Wrong. A good counterexample is your parents producing you, a different lifeform from them, completely unique in that no other lifeform shares the same combination of genes that you have.

even when you are asked directly a question about macroevolution you come off with the above. astounding.

That has nothing to do with evolution, of course.

you heard it here first folks, the origins of life have nothing to do with evolution.
i suppose asexual reproduction doesn't have anything to do with evolution either.

Your reliance on creationist propaganda as if it was from the bible.

everything that contradicts evolution is creationist propaganda, even the fossil record.
yes sir indeed even billys agreement with me on my points is creationist propaganda.
get a grip james.

Arguing with a complete absence of knowledge of your opponents' case is very unlikely to convince anybody of anything. When you've only looked at one side of the argument, you start looking stupid as your opponents continually confront you with the other side that you have no answers to.

the only answers to the other sides questions i don't have is an alternate explanation of lifes diversity.

Yeah, in the same way that the theory of gravity is a lie. Or the theory of a spherical Earth.

then provide the documented in lab test results.
i posted a link from pnas which states evolutions most basic tenets, namely cell mutations, do not result in beneficial combinations. none of you touched it

Amazing! You actually refuse to think about the matter. Seldom do I come across people who are so absolutely closed-minded that they won't even try to get their head around a concept that is new to them.

i gave you an answer james, what more do you want?
i told you "i don't know" then you come off with the above comments.
and remember, all i want are the documented lab results, that's all.

Won't you even make an effort to try to answer the questions put to you in post #225, or else try to explain why the argument is flawed?

uh, where did i say the argument was flawed?

If post #225 is "great for getting your point across", did it sway your faith in creationist nonsense?

i don't have faith in any type of nonsense.

It was a simple point, after all. Or didn't you understand it. I'm happy to answer questions if you actually didn't understand the point or the questions.

okay, i have a question:
can you show me a natural counterpart to your experiment?
i can see your happiness turning to rage and disdain

If so, I'm sure that "ardent supporter" was taken out of context by the creationists. That is a common tactic of theirs.

the link is there for all to see.

The Kitzmiller case is very well publicised. The evolutionary evidence put at the trial is mostly available online in full.

although the internet promised "the world at your fingertips" it has fallen far short.

The evidence in that case was outright fraud by the ID proponents, as well as convincing debunking of the creationists' concept of Intelligent Design. The judge made particular comment on the dishonesty of the ID proponents' side of the case.

evolutionists never lie do they james.

Where do you get this stuff? Birds aren't reptiles. They are descendants of dinosaurs.

i'm not the one that proposed the theory, go to the library and educate yourself.

The fossil record supports evolution. So does biology, biogeography, genetics, geology and physics.

the rarity of transitional fossils don't agree with you james.

You don't even understand evolution. You won't even look at the simplest of arguments, such as post #225, above. You can hardly hold a blowtorch to the feet of the evolutionists if you know nothing about it and are afraid to confront the most simple challenges to your position.

the only challenge to my position is the documented lab results.
post them and i'll shut up.

Yeah. I'm sure it is. Somewhere. At least, that's how you remember it. Mystery un-named science museum that doesn't believe in science. I believe you.

not my fault you didn't read it.

You mean the fraud that was uncovered by scientists?

have no idea who uncovered it.

How is this relevant to the theory of evolution?

by pointing out 2 things:
1. fossil fraud is a huge problem
and
2 there are no fossil authentication services.
how convenient.

Obviously, experts in fossils know a fake from a real one. Your link is about the commercial market, which is concerned with buying and selling fossils, often to people like you who couldn't tell a real fossil from a fake if it was labelled "Made in China".

it's obvious the point eludes you.

 

[John99]

does evolution exist?

Hard to say...the only thing i know is that plants grow. They grow from seeds. So seems like some type of major Panspermic Event occurred.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Time to take out the trash I think

 

[spidergoat]

yes, the written word is everywhere.
the demonstrated facts are nowhere to be found or you would have posted them.

prove me wrong on the following statements:
science has never witnessed one lifeform changing into another such as a dog changing into a cat.
likewise, science has never demonstrated life coming from nonlife.
the fact of the matter is science simply has not performed the demonstrations.
those are the facts my dear friends.
i patiently await the documented results.
i can hear you now, or better yet i probably won't.

Science has witnessed many such events in the fossil record. Such things inherently take a long time, even with punctuated equilibrium, so no one will ever observe it directly unless they live for millions of years. But indirect observations can be very powerful. This is the evidence it is your responsibility to contradict.

 

[John99]

 

[Billy T]

glad you agree with me billy.

But I do NOT agree with you. I agreed that nothing can be proved except in math. I said:
"Strictly speaking that* is true. Nothing can be proven outside of the realm of mathematics, not even that the sun will rise tomorrow. "
*(that evolution has not been proven).

You tried to make it seem as if I supported your silly POV by selective quote - just one more example of your lack of honesty. I accept evolution as fact because it has been tested and confirmed on thousands of occasions in at least a dozen different fields without even one prediction falsified.

There are millions of ways to prove it wrong. For example find a bone of creature evolution states evolved after year X in an undisturbed soil layer that is radio isotope dated to be before X but this has never happened.

Hundreds of predictions of creationism have been falsified and not one confirmed. For example, Creationist claim all the creatures were made in the current form at essentially the same time, not over many million of years. Thus dinosaurs, birds and men were all living and dying in any decade dinosaurs were. If that were true then among the million or so dinosaur bones that have been found there should be, in the same undisturbed layer of earth, the bones of men and birds - NEVER has that been found to be the case. These bones are found as evolution predicts. Dinosaur bones in the older layer, bird bones in the next younger layer and bones of men in relatively recent layers.

So there are two theories that contradict each other, neither of which can be proven (that being possible on in the realm of math). Both make predictions. Not one prediction of evolution has been shown to be false and many thousands have been confirmed, supporting, but not proving, the truth of evolution.

In contrast, not one prediction of creationism, which differs from those of evolution, has even one supporting fact found AND dozens of predictions of creationism have been shown to be false - such as the absence of bird and man bones in the layer with dinosaurs bones, etc.

 

[leopold]

But I do NOT agree with you. I agreed that nothing can be proved except in math. I said:
"Strictly speaking that* is true. Nothing can be proven outside of the realm of mathematics, not even that the sun will rise tomorrow. "
*(that evolution has not been proven).

how can you not agree with me and agree with me at the same time.
oh i see, you are afraid of being labeled a creationist, OMG your reputation might suffer.

There are millions of ways to prove it wrong. For example find a bone of creature evolution states evolved after year X in an undisturbed soil layer that is radio dated dated to be before X but this has never happened.

read the book "kon-tiki". in this book is described a fish that was caught, jump on board, that was thought to have went extinct millions of years ago.
go ahaed, gloss it over.

Hundreds of predictions of creationism have been falsified and not one confirmed. For example, Creationist claim all the creatures were made in the current form at essentially the same time, not over many million years. Thus dinosaurs, birds and men were all living and dying in any decade dinosaurs were. If that were true then among the million or so dinosaur bones that have been found there should be, in the same undisturbed layer of earth, the bones of men and birds - NEVER has that been found to be the case. These bones are found as evolution predicts. Dinosaur bones in the older layer, bird bones in the next younger layer and bones of men in relatively recent layers.

why people insist on dragging creationism into this is a mystery.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

read the book "kon-tiki". in this book is described a fish that was caught, jump on board, that was thought to have went extinct millions of years ago.
go ahead, gloss it over.

the clue is in the words "after" and "before" and the order they come in in the passage you are quoting.

I think perhaps before we try and teach you basic biology, a few episodes of Sesame Street where they explain the difference between before and after might be much more useful to you at your current level of intellectual development.

 

[Billy T]

how can you not agree with me and agree with me at the same time.

I do not agree with you. In stead I agree with many who can think clearly and thus know that nothing can be proven, except in the realm of math. I.e. fact that evolution can not be "proven" is due to it not being a mathematical abstraction, not any evidence against evolution, except in the minds of the ignorant or confused thinkers.

read the book "kon-tiki". in this book is described a fish that was caught, jump on board, that was thought to have went extinct millions of years ago. go ahaed, gloss it over.

My first wife was Norwegian so I read it long ago (even visited its reconstruction near the "viking museum" in Oslo harbor) As I recall, there no such report in the book, nor would Thor know what fish were extinct as that was not his field. What you probably are confused with is the fish first pulled alive from great depths by a fisherman in the Indian Ocean. (Fossils and some decaying samples found on beaches were earlier known, as I recall.) That happened in about 1980 - my daughter did a report on it for school. This is why I know where first was caught and approximately when. It is called a coelacanth.

why people insist on dragging creationism into this is a mystery.

No. People attacking evolution have only that to offer as an alternative. Showing that not one prediction of creationism has factual support and dozen of its claims/ predictions are known to be false add support to evolution, as then it is the "only game in town" because creationism has been so thourghly shown to be false. Also as the US sinks ever deeper into mysticism, abandoning science in its pubic school (and movies, TV etc.) it is necessary to speak out in support of facts based thinking.

 

[leopold]

regardless of all the bullshit i still await the lab results.
i'm afraid my bones will turn to dust before i get them.

i read the book too and it clearly described this fish jumping onboard which was thought to have extinct millions of years ago. of course it was one of the first editions so current versions might have this information removed.

 

[Billy T]

... i read the book too and it clearly described this fish jumping onboard which was thought to have extinct millions of years ago. of course it was one of the first editions so current versions might have this information removed.

Thought by whom to be millions of years old? Yes in the South Pacific some fish the crew had not seen before did jump on board but they, unlike you, were too intelligent to conclude the fish were thought to be extinct, just because they had not previously seen them in the North Atlantic, which Thor's crew knew well.

BTW, thanks for reminding me of this, one of millions, of supporting facts for evolution:

“coelacanths were considered the "missing link" between the fish and the tetrapods.” This because “Coelacanths are lobe-finned fish with the pectoral and anal fins on fleshy stalks supported by bones, and the tail orcaudal fin diphycercal (divided into three lobes)…” They did not have lungs so were not the first to walk up on the land, but did have the beginning of arm bones and the two lateral parts of the tail or anal fins may have been the precursors of the hind legs tetrapods have. I.e. the coelacanths illustrates what may be an early stage in the evolution of four legged creatures today, (but again, this is not my field, it have just been one of the many branches of evolution that dead ended.)

Quoted text from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Billy, I have no idea why you are even bothering to entertain him on this subject - it's a totally irrelevant tangent that stems from leopold's failure to comprehend the difference between the words "before" and "after" in your previous post.

had the crew found a fossil of said fish in a strata that had been laid down before vertebrates had evolved then it would have an earth shattering discovery.

the discovery of a living fish very similar to one that was thought to be extinct, while remarkable, poses no problems for the theory of evolution.

 

[leopold]

SP,
due to your remarks to me in an earlier post i will no longer read nor respond to your posts.

 

[drumbeat]

Please don't respond to me either then, because I also believe you to be an idiot.

It's not as if you responded to any of the questions anyway...

 

[synthesizer-patel]

SP,
due to your remarks to me in an earlier post i will no longer read nor respond to your posts.

of course not - when one is pulling out all the stops and trying every tactic in the book to avoid and derail an honest discussion - like you have been found to be doing - it would make perfect sense for the perpetrator to ignore the fellow who, instead of engaging you in your disengenuous games, insists instead that you set the proper parameters for honesty in the discussion.

Is it any wonder then that I have you running scared?

 

[leopold]

Please don't respond to me either then, because I also believe you to be an idiot.

It's not as if you responded to any of the questions anyway...

only an idiot would say evolution isn't about single celled lifeforms.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003124/en/life-3.htm

 

[John99]

I said:
"Strictly speaking that* is true. Nothing can be proven outside of the realm of mathematics, not even that the sun will rise tomorrow. "
*(that evolution has not been proven).

BS. Why do people make such nonsensical statements?

 

[Billy T]

BS. Why do people make such nonsensical statements?

OK tell me even one, non-mathematical fact you can prove is true.
Note in advance I can always fall back on Mass hallucinations to show that it might not be true. Fact that once many thought the world was flat, is not a proof that it is flat; nor is fact many believe now it is round is not a proof it is round. In fact you can not prove anything even exists.

This possibility that nothing exist (except an immaterial perceiver) was advanced more than 300 years ago by Bishop Berkeley. here from wiki is his POV:
"... George Berkeley (12 March 1685 – 14 January 1753), also known as Bishop Berkeley (Bishop of Cloyne), was an Anglo-Irish philosopher whose primary achievement was the advancement of a theory he called "immaterialism" (later referred to as "subjective idealism" by others). This theory contends that individuals can only know sensations and ideas of objects, not abstractions such as "matter", and that ideas depend on perceiving minds for their very existence. ..."

For more than 300 years scholars, et.al. have tried to find some contradiction in the Good Bishop's position, but none has.