leopold99:
leopold99 said:
James R said:
The theory of evolution does not rest on a single piece of "lab evidence". Rather, its truth and proof rests on the overall accumulation of evidence from many fields of enquiry, many observations of the natural world, and (yes) some laboratory studies.
Go to
www.talkorigins.org and search for "evidence for evolution". See what you can dig up. They even have articles on the laboratory experiments which support the theory, if that is your fixation.
you search for it james, post it when you find it.
One minute of searching turns this up, for a start:
29+ evidences for macroevolutionp
i guess the 50 or so scientists at the chicago conference had no idea they were wrong.
I guess so. Were they creation "scientists"? Every biologist knows that microevolution leads to macroevolution over time. How could it do anything else?
i believe in adaptation, the sherpas of nepal for example.
How did the sherpas adapt? Please explain your understanding of that to me.
that's what i was taught in school.
Did they teach creationism at your school?
No, it doesn't. Asexual reproduction, in and of itself, does not result in any changes to a genome.
oh, so THAT'S why. i was wondering why drumbeat said evolution wasn't about single cells.
Evolution can occur with single cells. Please stay on topic. You need to work out what you're discussing, then discuss it. Don't wander off into irrelevancies.
so tell me james ol' boy where did this mysterious cell come from and how on earth could it explain lifes diversity?
It came from non-living precursors, obviously. Where else could it come from?
let's be honest here james, i don't know what to believe anymore.
despite my best efforts i cannot find an objective website on evolution.
both sides accuse the other of lying AND provides the proof of it.
What you're telling me, in effect, is that you believe in a mega-conspiracy of most of the world's working biologists and medical researchers. Is that what you believe? That the vast majority of working biologists are deliberate liars?
Why? Because you're incapable of thinking about post #225 at the level of, say, an 8 year old child?
there is no need for this.
Yes there is. I put to you a very simple scenario and asked you some 8-year-old level questions about it. And yet, over and over again you have avoided addressing those questions. Either you're dumber than the average 8 year old, or you're being evasive, or you're engaged in wilful blindness.
Just answer the bloody questions in post #225. Show just a little bit of integrity instead of squirming like a worm that somebody stepped on.
i am saying i understand the point you are trying to make with #225
No you don't. You can't even answer the simple questions I put to you there. If you had the remotest inkling of what I put to you, you'd apply your brain at the level of an 8 year old and answer the questions honestly to the best of your ability.
Or is it that you do understand it but are avoiding the questions because the answers are too inconvenient for your position? That's where the dishonesty kicks in, isn't it. And that's where any respect I have for you drops away to zero.
Sure. Look at any sequence of descent that you like. For example, trace from australopithecus to modern apes. Or from ambulocetus to modern whales. Or from dinosaurs to modern birds. Or whatever. Any line of descent will do.
where do i find this info?
Try
www.talkorigins.org. It will take you one minute or less to type "transitional fossils" into their search engine and get the results.
Are you a baby? Do I need to baby you through the process of using a search engine?
Oh, never mind. See if you can click on the link I gave earlier in this post. You can click on link, right? Next, read the index of the article under "transitional forms", and click on any of the links there that take your fancy.
Are you saying you can't find the Kitzmiller information? Not good at searching the web?
no, i suck at it. it's the major reason i posted the case abstract.
So go read the evidence - in particular the evidence put by the expert witnesses on both sides, and the cross-examinations. It really is fascinating stuff, and an eye-opener for somebody like you who has been swallowing the creationist line since your school days.
Let me ask you again: who told you that birds descended from reptiles?
no body told me, they are apparently dead.
So you made up a lie that some scientists think birds are descended from reptiles, did you?
You agree that at least some transitional fossils exist, then?
apparently a few exist, yes.
Then macroevolution is proven.
It would be easy to name the museum if it is existed. Chances are you didn't read it. Did you make this up, too?
yes, URL and all, even the website itself.
I see. More lies from you, leo. Not a good look.
the point i was trying to make is fossils can be faked to where the layman will never know it.
Laymen typically don't publish in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The science is done by practising scientists. Science is professional occupation these days, leo.
Judging by the responses in this thread it's easy to assume that ANYONE that challenges such a fabrication will automatically be labeled a creationist, called stupid, ignorant, an idiot, retard, unwilling to learn, etc, etc, ad nausum.
Only if they are a creationist, stupid, ignorant, an idiot etc.