does evolution exsist

[leopold]

How stupid can you be? All predictions are validated by the predicted event being true. Thus there is no prediction about future events which is known to be valid now.

okay, i will accept that

Further more more than 90% of evolution's predictions, made 100 or more years ago have subsequently been found to be true. None have been been shown to be false!

none? as in zero?
got any sources for this statement, such as "science", "pubmed", or plos?

fact that some "missing link" has not been found does not prove it never existed.

according to "science" AND gould the rarity of transitional fossils, aka "missing links", is the trade secret of paleontolog

I have made a prediction which will not be confirmed for at least 10,000 year here:494

step back and look at what you just wrote billy.
the above reeks of creationism.

For example IDers / creationist have dinosaurs, birds, and men all created at essentially the same time (and dying in the same decades, to have their bones found in the same geological strata, which is a false prediction).

i may be wrong but i think the cambrian layer proves you wrong.
edit:
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosion.htm
end edit.

Evolution in contrast predicts what is observed without exception: Dinosaur bones, when in undisturbed strata, NEVER have bird or man bones in that same layer.

and what if something on that order was found?
instead of objectively analyzing the situation you will hear "fraud", deceit","fake","fluke", maybe even sabotage.

 

[leopold]

the following is typical of someone presenting rock hard evidence against what evolution says:
http://disputatio.com/articles/006-1.pdf

 

[matthew809]

Not only has evolution made MORE THAN a MILLION confirmed predictions* but Evolution predicts correctly. In contrast IDers, ONLY make false predictions (unless they are the same predictions as evolution has made).

First of all, I can't believe you guys are still bickering over whether or not evolution makes predictions, as if making general already-common-knowledge predictions counts for anything, especially if the theory is wrong anyway. My idea of intelligent design makes the same tired predictions as evolution does. ID also "predicts" that bacteria and other animals will adapt and change, and that certain fossils will be found at certain layers because they existed at different times. Duh, really? Thanks for the heads up Nostradamus. (Did evolution really predict this, or did some guys just figure it out when they dug up the bones?)

The problem with evolution is that it's more prediction than it is observation... more wishful thinking than common sense.

 

[drumbeat]

First of all, I can't believe you guys are still bickering over whether or not evolution makes predictions, as if making general already-common-knowledge predictions counts for anything, especially if the theory is wrong anyway. My idea of intelligent design makes the same tired predictions as evolution does. ID also "predicts" that bacteria and other animals will adapt and change, and that certain fossils will be found at certain layers because they existed at different times. Duh, really? Thanks for the heads up Nostradamus. (Did evolution really predict this, or did some guys just figure it out when they dug up the bones?)

The problem with evolution is that it's more prediction than it is observation... more wishful thinking than common sense.

Which species does you believe were 'intelligently designed'?

 

[leopold]

First of all, I can't believe you guys are still bickering over whether or not evolution makes predictions, as if making general already-common-knowledge predictions counts for anything, especially if the theory is wrong anyway.

this is a statement of fact. where is your evidence of evolution being false?
the evidence in this thread alone is enough to convince me of microevolution.

The problem with evolution is that it's more prediction than it is observation... more wishful thinking than common sense.

in my opinion consistently predicting future events would be pretty strong evidence.

 

[matthew809]

Which species does you believe were 'intelligently designed'?

I believe all life on earth was intelligently designed. Any evolution which takes place after the original creation is due to the pre-programmed flexibility of the DNA.

 

[Billy T]

... the evidence in this thread alone is enough to convince me of microevolution.

That is good. Do you have any reason why micro-evolution acting for 100,000 generation could not create a fish with lungs and some with quite "Leg/arm-like" bone structures in their fins? (They both exist.)* Would you call that accumulate change "macro-evolution"? Or would that be macro-evolution only after the evolving "fish" lived on land?

in my opinion consistently predicting future events would be pretty strong evidence.

Well 100 or so years ago evolutionists did predict (in the future to them) and describe details of many "missing links" - Not all have been found, (yet?), but many have been. I would like to again direct your attention to Trilobite - 10 different order that can (and were) placed into an evolution sequence (time ordered) based on their changing shapes. This of course makes a prediction - I.e. things like "order 3 will be found in higher strata then orders 1 & 2 and in lower strata than the later orders." Note this prediction is based on their changing shapes but is in fact confirmed by what strata they are found in. There are more than 20,000 species within these 10 orders.

That makes a lot (> 100,000) of implicit predictions about the layers of UNDISTURBED strata the trilobites will be found in. How many old predictions, confirmed by future events, (which are now in our past) do you require to be "strong evidence"?

--------------
*
“… Using medical x-rays, Alhberg and his team created a three-dimensional image of a fin belonging to Panderichthys, a coastal fish that lived about 385 million years ago during the Devonian period.
The scans revealed the ancient fish had many of the same bones that make up a modern human arm, including the humerus, radius, and ulna, as well as four small "radial" bones that look remarkably like rudimentary fingers, the authors said.
Unlike human fingers, however, Panderichthys's digits were concealed in the fleshy arm-like base of its fin. With the origins of tetrapods, the outermost part of the fin was lost, allowing the "fingers" that were always present at the base of the fin to emerge, Ahlberg said.
Many scientists {however} regard Tiktaalik as a "missing link": the crucial transitional animal between fish and the first tetrapods. …”
The research was detailed in 21 September 2008 journal Nature. But quote above was copied from: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080924-fish-fingers.html so you can access it with a click.

 

[leopold]

That is good. Do you have any reason why micro-evolution acting for 100,000 generation could not create a fish with lungs and some with quite "Leg/arm-like" bone structures in their fins?

yes i doubt macro evolution for 2 reasons:
1. it has never been demonstrated in the lab.
2.

"We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from 884 what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate."

-Science, vol. 210 no. 4472 pp: 883-887

How many old predictions, confirmed by future events, (which are now in our past) do you require to be "strong evidence"?

some bonifide science sources would probably help.

about your national geographic link, weren't they in on one of the many hoax's of the fossil record?
i'll find it.
edit:
http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id=218391539

 

[spidergoat]

How do you demonstrate the accumulation of small changes until it no longer resembles it's parent species in the space of one scientist's lifetime? That's an unreasonable expectation and in any case unnecessary.

 

[wellwisher]

One conceptual problem that concerns me is the fossil data is discontinuous. This is nobody's fault, just of the trillions of theoretical samples, we may have collected in the low millions.

The discontinuous nature of the data collection would force us to conclude that the data says the model needs to be discontinuous. Is that conclusion a philosophical bias due to the naturel of science and data?

Let me give an example. I make a continuous line of popcorn around my house. The birds come and randomly eat the popcorn. Now the line is discontinuous. Even though I made a continuous line, I would be called a liar, since the data clearly shows the line is not continuous.

If we had all the samples possible (all the popcorn), could our conclusion be different from the conclusion draw which use only partial and discontinuous data?

 

[leopold]

How do you demonstrate the accumulation of small changes until it no longer resembles it's parent species in the space of one scientist's lifetime?

that is the responsibility of the person or persons formulating the hypothesis.

That's an unreasonable expectation and in any case unnecessary.

not my problem.
ask the people that decided to elevate evolution to the status of theory without subjecting it to the rigors of science.

 

[spidergoat]

What you are suggesting is not necessary to science. We can't run that experiment, but we don't have to. There is no essential difference between small changes and their accumulative effect. That's like asking us to create the Grand Canyon in the lab after we have demonstrated erosion on a small scale.

 

[leopold]

One conceptual problem that concerns me is the fossil data is discontinuous. This is nobody's fault, just of the trillions of theoretical samples, we may have collected in the low millions.

The discontinuous nature of the data collection would force us to conclude that the data says the model needs to be discontinuous. Is that conclusion a philosophical bias due to the naturel of science and data?

Let me give an example. I make a continuous line of popcorn around my house. The birds come and randomly eat the popcorn. Now the line is discontinuous. Even though I made a continuous line, I would be called a liar, since the data clearly shows the line is not continuous.

If we had all the samples possible (all the popcorn), could our conclusion be different from the conclusion draw which use only partial and discontinuous data?

the many known fossil frauds leads me to believe that someone is desperate for evidence, anything to prove their pet theory.
you also can't interpret the fossil record with evolution then point to that interpretation as proof of evolution, something that happens quite often.

 

[spidergoat]

Who discovered those few frauds? It was science. I think that demonstrates the value of science.

 

[leopold]

edit:
i have spent some time on the following site after making this post.
although i cannot vouch for the validity of the evidence it presented i left the site feeling it was creationist in nature.
it does however appear objective.
end edit.

the following appears to be an objective website.

their mission statement:

* To present as many views and their corresponding opposing views as possible.
* To give the best presentation of each view without using false, distorted, or misleading information (just the facts, ma'am).
* To educate the reader so that they can cut through the large amounts of misinformation presented by both sides.
* To enable the reader to draw their own conclusions based on actual facts and data.

Will this site convince you one way or the other? It's doubtful. Some of the world's greatest minds have studied evolution and creation. Some have come to believe that evolution is utter nonsense and others see it as solid and as well-proven as a theory can get. Clearly the answer is not black and white. While there is plenty of evidence both for and against evolution, I have yet to find the smoking gun that either proves or disproves it beyond all doubt. The best you can hope is to learn and understand the facts, cut through the lies and nonsense, and form and educated opinion. It is not the goal of this site to lead you to a particular destination, but merely to assist you in your journey.

http://www.epicidiot.com/

 

[spidergoat]

That's a strange kind of relativism. In thinking there is still a controversy, they give a false impression of the issue, and more value to frauds than they are worth.

 

[leopold]

That's a strange kind of relativism. In thinking there is still a controversy, they give a false impression of the issue, and more value to frauds than they are worth.

contact the owner of the site and tell them your concerns, i'm sure they will ask you for documented evidence though.

question:
how are they (epicidiot) giving a false impression?
are you denying anything that was presented?

 

[spidergoat]

The idiot analysis of the theist Behe have long been discredited. He fails to recognize that the components of such allegedly irreducible structures of the bacteria flagellum can be found in a more primitive state in other bacteria. He also does not acknowledge that parts of a living structure could have originally had other uses, and that there can be transitional parts that disappear when no longer needed, leading to the appearance of irreducibility.

 

[spidergoat]

Death anxiety linked to acceptance of intelligent design: study

Research conducted at the University of British Columbia and Union College found that people's death anxiety was associated with support of intelligent design and rejection of evolutionary theory.

Death anxiety also influenced those in the study to report an increased liking for Michael Behe, a prominent proponent of intelligent design, and an increased disliking for Richard Dawkins, a well-known evolutionary biologist.

The findings suggest that people are motivated to believe in intelligent design and doubt evolutionary theory because of unconscious psychological motives.

 

[James R]

wellwisher:

I believe that evolution can be upgraded to a theory.

No need. It already is one.

Bacteria will develop resistance to anti-bacterial agents. This reflects a cause and effect with the anti-bacterial agent setting the potential for change with the adaptation specific to the agent used. In other words, if we add agent A, the bacteria will not develop resistance to agent B, that is still sitting on the self. Evolution is not as random as assumed but appears to be a function of potentials.

This shows that you don't understand how the process of resistance develops in bacteria. It sounds like you think individual bacteria somehow change themselves to become resistant to agent A, and that because they don't know agent B is sitting on a shelf, they can't "react" to it by becoming resistant.

The truth is that in your population of billions of bacteria, some bacteria will - randomly - be more resistant to agent A than others, whether agent A is present or sitting on shelf somewhere. And other bacteria in the same batch will be more resistant than others to agent B. When agent A is then actually introduced, the bacteria that happen by chance to be more resistant to agent A have a better chance of surviving to reproduce the next generation. That next generation will therefore necessarily be more resistant overall to agent A because it is directly descended preferentially from the agent-A-resistant strains in the previous generation.

Do you see where your reasoning went wrong now? Does this help clear things up for you? What do you think would happen if agent B was now introduced to the largely agent-A-resistant batch of bacteria?