Total Posts:81|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution DOES lack proper evidence

josht
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 7:39:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Many evolutionists constantly claim that there is evidence for evolution. All of this 'evidence' can be debunked with anyone with half a brain cell.

The fossil record. I kind of understand why people see this as evidence but it makes no sense as evidence once you think about. I mean sceintists always talk about how dinosaurs turned into birds and how fish turned into amphibians but what evidence do they have of this? Theyre essentially just speculating and making blind guesses. Its like me looking at a bunch of parked cars and trying to determine at what time which car parked. I could just speculate and thats it. Its like evolution.

Also, how in the world is microvolution proof of macrovolution? Weve seen some very minor changes to organisms. This is called adaptation. But weve never, EVER seen one kind turn into another. Period.

Anything evolutionists have to say in there defense?
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 3:55:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Evolution is a fact. Creationists should be discussing (if anything), if the mechanism drives evolution is mainly Natural selection or not, because that's the only thing you can discuss nowadays that would make sense to debate.

But before going to the evidence, I want you to acknowledge that more than 200 dog breeds originated from the european wolf alone. Breeds that are strikingly different in appearance, habits, intellect ... Some might be called different species in the sense that in no way they can interbreed naturally (ie yorksire terrier toy with german bulldog).

Another example is that of Brassica oleracea, that in just a few centuries, has been turned into broccoli, kohlrabi, kale, brussels sprout, collard greens, and so on.

This demonstrates the extreme variability that can exist within just one specie and how fast can species change if you are in a suitable environment. Regarding the speed of changes, there"s many examples in dogs, such as beagle dogs and dachshund"s short legs, that are the result of a single mutation (achon<x>droplasia) requiring one generation to occur, JUST ONE! Isn"t that extremely fast for such a dramatic change? Surprisingly, the anatomical changes of dogs depend on few mutations that breeders have selected in a few hundred years. Now think that nature has not had a few hundred years, but BILLION years.

Note that dog breeders and broccoli farmers, do not change the DNA of the species directly, they simply SELECT the variants they want, making the species change in a certain direction. If the environment is also able to select some variants over others, then it is impossible to think that evolution does not occur.

One would think that nature is "not intelligent" and therefore can not be compared to a dog breeder. Nothing is further from the truth. Do not insects select the best flowers to feed on nectar? At the same time, they get stained with pollen, and thus they make these flowers reproduce faster than those with a less tasty nectar. And the other way around, mimicking orchids ie Ophrys apifera which simulates a bee, has precisely a vastly superior efficiency at attracting bees if compared to other species of orchids. There are many examples of species "deliberately" modeling the other species with whom they interact... The classic example is that of the predator forcing the prey species to become increasingly faster, as predators eat slow individuals.

Even within the specie, populations are selected differently, for example by sexual selection, such as when the female peacock only couples with the male that shows the most beautiful feathers.

Other example of selection is made by environmental elements such as cold, since cold effectively kills individuals that are not resistant to cold, and thus we can say cold IS selecting.

So now you see that species change and that nature can indeed select. How can you deny that evolution occurs? The fossil record is perfectly consistent with evolution theory, you'll never find in the geological stratum that primates appeared in the Pleistocene if hominids have appeared in the Miocene. That would imply that primates appeared 20 million years after hominids, which would reduce to dust evolution theory because it would demonstrate that the hominids do not descend from primate ancestors. This one thing would destroy every fossil evidence, ecological and genetic evidence supporting evolution. However, for the ~ 500 million species that have lived on Earth since its origin, there is not even one case, NOT EVEN ONE, that compromises evolution theory. In this sense, the theory of evolution is far more stable than many other scientific theories. So why debate it with so much intensity? You could figure it out yourself: evolution theory denies the religious conception of biodiversity and mankind, and thus religious groups refuse to accept it.

Evolutionary changes are perfectly observable in species that reproduce very quickly, as this accelerate the pace of evolution, for example in bacteria. Any scientist working with E.coli can observe the spontaneous emergence of strains of the bacteria overnight, when grown in cultures with different nutrients. Mutations that suffer this bacteria by chance are very few in number, and still make a significant difference since they imply that the bacteria may (or may not) survive in a culture. (http://www.pnas.org...)

Other evolutionary changes observed were the famous experiment of the island of Pod Macaru where scientists introduced 5 males and 5 females of Podarcis sicula (a lizard) on the island Pod Macaru. 36 years later they came back to the isle and observed lizard had shifted from being mostly insectivorous to Strongly vegetarian (up to 60% of their diet were now vegetables), and had developed an adapted cecal valve to slow digestion rates. They also had a shift in their behavior. The changes were so surprising, that genomic analysis were perfomed to ensure lizards did to hybridize with other species of the island to acquire this traits. (http://www.pnas.org...)

Another example that I personally find fascinating to prove evolution is that of the "ring species." A ring specie is normally made of 3 or more populations (call it A, B and C). Genetic techniques show that A is the original population from which population B, and the most modern C descend. The interesting thing about ring species is that population A (the oldest) is able to reproduce with B, but not with the modern C! And thus A and C can not be considered members of the same species. However, C can still reproduce with B, which shows that in the past it was still part of the same species as A. The classic example of ring species is the California salamander (Eschscholtzii klauberi), and others can be found in wikipedia: http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Hope it helped.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 6:20:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 7:39:08 PM, josht wrote:
Many evolutionists constantly claim that there is evidence for evolution. All of this 'evidence' can be debunked with anyone with half a brain cell.

The fossil record. I kind of understand why people see this as evidence but it makes no sense as evidence once you think about. I mean sceintists always talk about how dinosaurs turned into birds and how fish turned into amphibians but what evidence do they have of this? Theyre essentially just speculating and making blind guesses. Its like me looking at a bunch of parked cars and trying to determine at what time which car parked. I could just speculate and thats it. Its like evolution.

Also, how in the world is microvolution proof of macrovolution? Weve seen some very minor changes to organisms. This is called adaptation. But weve never, EVER seen one kind turn into another. Period.

Anything evolutionists have to say in there defense?

Yeah, the fossil record is not posited as evidence of evolution. Genetics is. The fossil record just happens to agree and be consistent with evolution. A seemingly amazing coincidence if one or the other was wrong!
josht
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 7:11:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 6:20:46 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/27/2014 7:39:08 PM, josht wrote:
Many evolutionists constantly claim that there is evidence for evolution. All of this 'evidence' can be debunked with anyone with half a brain cell.

The fossil record. I kind of understand why people see this as evidence but it makes no sense as evidence once you think about. I mean sceintists always talk about how dinosaurs turned into birds and how fish turned into amphibians but what evidence do they have of this? Theyre essentially just speculating and making blind guesses. Its like me looking at a bunch of parked cars and trying to determine at what time which car parked. I could just speculate and thats it. Its like evolution.

Also, how in the world is microvolution proof of macrovolution? Weve seen some very minor changes to organisms. This is called adaptation. But weve never, EVER seen one kind turn into another. Period.

Anything evolutionists have to say in there defense?

Yeah, the fossil record is not posited as evidence of evolution. Genetics is. The fossil record just happens to agree and be consistent with evolution. A seemingly amazing coincidence if one or the other was wrong!

Lol so even evolutionists agree that the fossil evidence isnt evidence thanks for proving my point.

How does genetics prove that evolution is true? You evolutionists really like making claims without evidence lol.
josht
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 7:13:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 3:55:35 AM, Otokage wrote:
Evolution is a fact. Creationists should be discussing (if anything), if the mechanism drives evolution is mainly Natural selection or not, because that's the only thing you can discuss nowadays that would make sense to debate.

But before going to the evidence, I want you to acknowledge that more than 200 dog breeds originated from the european wolf alone. Breeds that are strikingly different in appearance, habits, intellect ... Some might be called different species in the sense that in no way they can interbreed naturally (ie yorksire terrier toy with german bulldog).

Another example is that of Brassica oleracea, that in just a few centuries, has been turned into broccoli, kohlrabi, kale, brussels sprout, collard greens, and so on.

This demonstrates the extreme variability that can exist within just one specie and how fast can species change if you are in a suitable environment. Regarding the speed of changes, there"s many examples in dogs, such as beagle dogs and dachshund"s short legs, that are the result of a single mutation (achon<x>droplasia) requiring one generation to occur, JUST ONE! Isn"t that extremely fast for such a dramatic change? Surprisingly, the anatomical changes of dogs depend on few mutations that breeders have selected in a few hundred years. Now think that nature has not had a few hundred years, but BILLION years.

Note that dog breeders and broccoli farmers, do not change the DNA of the species directly, they simply SELECT the variants they want, making the species change in a certain direction. If the environment is also able to select some variants over others, then it is impossible to think that evolution does not occur.

One would think that nature is "not intelligent" and therefore can not be compared to a dog breeder. Nothing is further from the truth. Do not insects select the best flowers to feed on nectar? At the same time, they get stained with pollen, and thus they make these flowers reproduce faster than those with a less tasty nectar. And the other way around, mimicking orchids ie Ophrys apifera which simulates a bee, has precisely a vastly superior efficiency at attracting bees if compared to other species of orchids. There are many examples of species "deliberately" modeling the other species with whom they interact... The classic example is that of the predator forcing the prey species to become increasingly faster, as predators eat slow individuals.

Even within the specie, populations are selected differently, for example by sexual selection, such as when the female peacock only couples with the male that shows the most beautiful feathers.

Other example of selection is made by environmental elements such as cold, since cold effectively kills individuals that are not resistant to cold, and thus we can say cold IS selecting.

So now you see that species change and that nature can indeed select. How can you deny that evolution occurs? The fossil record is perfectly consistent with evolution theory, you'll never find in the geological stratum that primates appeared in the Pleistocene if hominids have appeared in the Miocene. That would imply that primates appeared 20 million years after hominids, which would reduce to dust evolution theory because it would demonstrate that the hominids do not descend from primate ancestors. This one thing would destroy every fossil evidence, ecological and genetic evidence supporting evolution. However, for the ~ 500 million species that have lived on Earth since its origin, there is not even one case, NOT EVEN ONE, that compromises evolution theory. In this sense, the theory of evolution is far more stable than many other scientific theories. So why debate it with so much intensity? You could figure it out yourself: evolution theory denies the religious conception of biodiversity and mankind, and thus religious groups refuse to accept it.

Evolutionary changes are perfectly observable in species that reproduce very quickly, as this accelerate the pace of evolution, for example in bacteria. Any scientist working with E.coli can observe the spontaneous emergence of strains of the bacteria overnight, when grown in cultures with different nutrients. Mutations that suffer this bacteria by chance are very few in number, and still make a significant difference since they imply that the bacteria may (or may not) survive in a culture. (http://www.pnas.org...)

Other evolutionary changes observed were the famous experiment of the island of Pod Macaru where scientists introduced 5 males and 5 females of Podarcis sicula (a lizard) on the island Pod Macaru. 36 years later they came back to the isle and observed lizard had shifted from being mostly insectivorous to Strongly vegetarian (up to 60% of their diet were now vegetables), and had developed an adapted cecal valve to slow digestion rates. They also had a shift in their behavior. The changes were so surprising, that genomic analysis were perfomed to ensure lizards did to hybridize with other species of the island to acquire this traits. (http://www.pnas.org...)

Another example that I personally find fascinating to prove evolution is that of the "ring species." A ring specie is normally made of 3 or more populations (call it A, B and C). Genetic techniques show that A is the original population from which population B, and the most modern C descend. The interesting thing about ring species is that population A (the oldest) is able to reproduce with B, but not with the modern C! And thus A and C can not be considered members of the same species. However, C can still reproduce with B, which shows that in the past it was still part of the same species as A. The classic example of ring species is the California salamander (Eschscholtzii klauberi), and others can be found in wikipedia: http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Hope it helped.

Evolution isnt a fact. Nothing in science can be a fact especially when it has no evidence.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 7:32:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 7:13:16 AM, josht wrote:
Evolution isnt a fact. Nothing in science can be a fact especially when it has no evidence.

So, you didn't bother to even read what was said.

You can find over 29 pieces of evidence for "macroevolution" here:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

And that isn't even all the evidence.

You also showed that you only see what you want to see. The other person you responded to said that the fossil record wouldn't show evolution alone, but that it fits with evolution. If the fossil record didn't appear as it did, then evolution would be false. Since it appears as it does, and there is a lot of evidence for evolution, it means evolution is correct.

Also, things in science can become a scientific fact. To say otherwise is to be ignorant about science.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 7:50:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 7:11:59 AM, josht wrote:
At 8/28/2014 6:20:46 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/27/2014 7:39:08 PM, josht wrote:
Many evolutionists constantly claim that there is evidence for evolution. All of this 'evidence' can be debunked with anyone with half a brain cell.

The fossil record. I kind of understand why people see this as evidence but it makes no sense as evidence once you think about. I mean sceintists always talk about how dinosaurs turned into birds and how fish turned into amphibians but what evidence do they have of this? Theyre essentially just speculating and making blind guesses. Its like me looking at a bunch of parked cars and trying to determine at what time which car parked. I could just speculate and thats it. Its like evolution.

Also, how in the world is microvolution proof of macrovolution? Weve seen some very minor changes to organisms. This is called adaptation. But weve never, EVER seen one kind turn into another. Period.

Anything evolutionists have to say in there defense?

Yeah, the fossil record is not posited as evidence of evolution. Genetics is. The fossil record just happens to agree and be consistent with evolution. A seemingly amazing coincidence if one or the other was wrong!

Lol so even evolutionists agree that the fossil evidence isnt evidence thanks for proving my point.

How does genetics prove that evolution is true?

http://www.talkorigins.org...

You evolutionists really like making claims without evidence lol.
josht
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 7:51:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 7:32:25 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:13:16 AM, josht wrote:
Evolution isnt a fact. Nothing in science can be a fact especially when it has no evidence.

So, you didn't bother to even read what was said.

You can find over 29 pieces of evidence for "macroevolution" here:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

And that isn't even all the evidence.

You also showed that you only see what you want to see. The other person you responded to said that the fossil record wouldn't show evolution alone, but that it fits with evolution. If the fossil record didn't appear as it did, then evolution would be false. Since it appears as it does, and there is a lot of evidence for evolution, it means evolution is correct.

Also, things in science can become a scientific fact. To say otherwise is to be ignorant about science.

I read everything he wrote. Guess what? It is all easily refuted and ill write a refutation when I have more time(soon).

Also, youve given me a biased link. Ill give your link a read, but I doubt theres anything valid in there. Ill read it just for the laughs though, and so I can show you why your logic fails.

I do not see only what I want to. You EVOLUTIONISTS are the ones who are guilty of this. I am simply being open minded. No matter how much evidence you are provided that your beliefs are wrong you still will believe in them. Many evolutionists use the fossil record as evidence and i just simply presented why its isnt valid evidence. As expected one of you came and started mentioning "genetic evidence" which they failed to provide.

Also, since anything in science can be disproven no you can never call something a fact. It can get very close but never a complete fact.
josht
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 7:52:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 7:50:13 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:11:59 AM, josht wrote:
At 8/28/2014 6:20:46 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/27/2014 7:39:08 PM, josht wrote:
Many evolutionists constantly claim that there is evidence for evolution. All of this 'evidence' can be debunked with anyone with half a brain cell.

The fossil record. I kind of understand why people see this as evidence but it makes no sense as evidence once you think about. I mean sceintists always talk about how dinosaurs turned into birds and how fish turned into amphibians but what evidence do they have of this? Theyre essentially just speculating and making blind guesses. Its like me looking at a bunch of parked cars and trying to determine at what time which car parked. I could just speculate and thats it. Its like evolution.

Also, how in the world is microvolution proof of macrovolution? Weve seen some very minor changes to organisms. This is called adaptation. But weve never, EVER seen one kind turn into another. Period.

Anything evolutionists have to say in there defense?

Yeah, the fossil record is not posited as evidence of evolution. Genetics is. The fossil record just happens to agree and be consistent with evolution. A seemingly amazing coincidence if one or the other was wrong!

Lol so even evolutionists agree that the fossil evidence isnt evidence thanks for proving my point.

How does genetics prove that evolution is true?

http://www.talkorigins.org...

You evolutionists really like making claims without evidence lol.

More biased links? Ill give it a read too so I can show why that evidence isnt evidence for evolution.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 8:26:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 7:13:16 AM, josht wrote:
Evolution isnt a fact. Nothing in science can be a fact especially when it has no evidence.

Evolution is not "in science". Evolution is a fact that occurs on the natural world. The Earth revolving around the sun and gravity atracting objects to Earth are also facts of the natural world. They have nothing to do with science, science simply observes and discovers these facts.

I look forward your response.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 8:33:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 7:39:08 PM, josht wrote:
Many evolutionists constantly claim that there is evidence for evolution. All of this 'evidence' can be debunked with anyone with half a brain cell.

The fossil record. I kind of understand why people see this as evidence but it makes no sense as evidence once you think about. I mean sceintists always talk about how dinosaurs turned into birds and how fish turned into amphibians but what evidence do they have of this? Theyre essentially just speculating and making blind guesses. Its like me looking at a bunch of parked cars and trying to determine at what time which car parked. I could just speculate and thats it. Its like evolution.

Also, how in the world is microvolution proof of macrovolution? Weve seen some very minor changes to organisms. This is called adaptation. But weve never, EVER seen one kind turn into another. Period.

Anything evolutionists have to say in there defense?

I've been running closely with Cinemasins, so prepare to be sinned.

-Reading
-Evolutionist is not a word
-The comparison of various species evolving into more advanced species which are better adapted to their environment is not comparable to when motor vehicles parked in a particular spot.
-Also, even if the point is just how this "is just speculation", the aspects involved in determining these two events are very different.
-Microevolution is not a word
-And macroevolution is not a word.
-Kind is not used in science as a term.
-Period.
-Evolutionist again.

Forum Sin Tally: 9

Sentence: ...

BONUS ROUND: Mistakes in spelling and grammar.

-Evolutionists +1
-sceintists +1
-Theyre +1
-thats COMBO x2
-microevolution COMBO x2
-macroevolution SUPER COMBO x3

(On fire!)

-Weve +1
-weve +1
-defense* +1

Forum Sin Tally: 147

Sentence: DEATH BY PSEUDOSCIENCE

No Forum Post Is Without Sin.
Which Forum's Sins Should We Recount Next?

*we use British spelling because we think it's more cynical.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 8:42:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 8:33:37 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
-Evolutionists +1
-sceintists +1
-Theyre +1
-thats COMBO x2
-microevolution COMBO x2
-macroevolution SUPER COMBO x3

(On fire!)

https://www.youtube.com...
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 9:03:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 7:52:13 AM, josht wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:50:13 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:11:59 AM, josht wrote:
At 8/28/2014 6:20:46 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/27/2014 7:39:08 PM, josht wrote:
Many evolutionists constantly claim that there is evidence for evolution. All of this 'evidence' can be debunked with anyone with half a brain cell.

The fossil record. I kind of understand why people see this as evidence but it makes no sense as evidence once you think about. I mean sceintists always talk about how dinosaurs turned into birds and how fish turned into amphibians but what evidence do they have of this? Theyre essentially just speculating and making blind guesses. Its like me looking at a bunch of parked cars and trying to determine at what time which car parked. I could just speculate and thats it. Its like evolution.

Also, how in the world is microvolution proof of macrovolution? Weve seen some very minor changes to organisms. This is called adaptation. But weve never, EVER seen one kind turn into another. Period.

Anything evolutionists have to say in there defense?

Yeah, the fossil record is not posited as evidence of evolution. Genetics is. The fossil record just happens to agree and be consistent with evolution. A seemingly amazing coincidence if one or the other was wrong!

Lol so even evolutionists agree that the fossil evidence isnt evidence thanks for proving my point.

How does genetics prove that evolution is true?

http://www.talkorigins.org...

You evolutionists really like making claims without evidence lol.

More biased links? Ill give it a read too so I can show why that evidence isnt evidence for evolution.

I await your response. In the meantime I'll ponder the irony of someone referring to a link as biased before they've even read it.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 9:05:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 7:52:13 AM, josht wrote:
More biased links? Ill give it a read too so I can show why that evidence isnt evidence for evolution.

You think that talkorigins is biased?

Wow... Just... Wow...

Also, just as an FYI, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist". There are people that accept that evolution is true (because of the MOUNTAINS of evidence), but that doesn't mean they are "evolutionists". What, am I a gravatationalist for accepting gravity? Am I a Big Bangist for accepting the Big Bang?

Everyone, it is confirmed, this guy is either a troll, new to debating (which is why he doesn't understand some basic concepts when talking about evolution vs creation), or a moron.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 9:07:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 3:55:35 AM, Otokage wrote:
Note that dog breeders and broccoli farmers, do not change the DNA of the species directly, they simply SELECT the variants they want, making the species change in a certain direction. If the environment is also able to select some variants over others, then it is impossible to think that evolution does not occur.

Get a dog breeder to select for wings, and check in with him in a few decades.

You're not going to see a single wing.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 9:08:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 9:07:19 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 8/28/2014 3:55:35 AM, Otokage wrote:
Note that dog breeders and broccoli farmers, do not change the DNA of the species directly, they simply SELECT the variants they want, making the species change in a certain direction. If the environment is also able to select some variants over others, then it is impossible to think that evolution does not occur.

Get a dog breeder to select for wings, and check in with him in a few decades.

You're not going to see a single wing.

And?
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 9:12:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 9:07:19 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 8/28/2014 3:55:35 AM, Otokage wrote:
Note that dog breeders and broccoli farmers, do not change the DNA of the species directly, they simply SELECT the variants they want, making the species change in a certain direction. If the environment is also able to select some variants over others, then it is impossible to think that evolution does not occur.

Get a dog breeder to select for wings, and check in with him in a few decades.

You're not going to see a single wing.

I would get a dog breeder to do that if I knew how on earth can I "select for wings". Can you do that?
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 9:18:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 9:07:19 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 8/28/2014 3:55:35 AM, Otokage wrote:
Note that dog breeders and broccoli farmers, do not change the DNA of the species directly, they simply SELECT the variants they want, making the species change in a certain direction. If the environment is also able to select some variants over others, then it is impossible to think that evolution does not occur.

Get a dog breeder to select for wings, and check in with him in a few decades.

You're not going to see a single wing.

But any way I could start with this:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com...
Then move to this:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com...
Then finally get this:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com...

And then a bat. Happy?
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 9:19:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 8:42:04 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:33:37 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
-Evolutionists +1
-sceintists +1
-Theyre +1
-thats COMBO x2
-microevolution COMBO x2
-macroevolution SUPER COMBO x3

(On fire!)

https://www.youtube.com...

Haha. Just, the sound effects. :D
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 9:22:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 9:18:41 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/28/2014 9:07:19 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 8/28/2014 3:55:35 AM, Otokage wrote:
Note that dog breeders and broccoli farmers, do not change the DNA of the species directly, they simply SELECT the variants they want, making the species change in a certain direction. If the environment is also able to select some variants over others, then it is impossible to think that evolution does not occur.

Get a dog breeder to select for wings, and check in with him in a few decades.

You're not going to see a single wing.

But any way I could start with this:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com...
Then move to this:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com...
Then finally get this:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com...

And then a bat. Happy?

Nope. Unless you can have a dog give birth to a bird, evolution is false. Didn't you know that?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 9:27:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 9:03:42 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
I await your response. In the meantime I'll ponder the irony of someone referring to a link as biased before they've even read it.

That was really creative DM.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 9:31:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 9:12:19 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/28/2014 9:07:19 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 8/28/2014 3:55:35 AM, Otokage wrote:
Note that dog breeders and broccoli farmers, do not change the DNA of the species directly, they simply SELECT the variants they want, making the species change in a certain direction. If the environment is also able to select some variants over others, then it is impossible to think that evolution does not occur.

Get a dog breeder to select for wings, and check in with him in a few decades.

You're not going to see a single wing.

I would get a dog breeder to do that if I knew how on earth can I "select for wings". Can you do that?

Why is evolution disproved over an arbitrary time frame of a few decades when living stuff replicating and mutations have been going on for far, far longer timespans?
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 9:32:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 9:22:09 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/28/2014 9:18:41 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/28/2014 9:07:19 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 8/28/2014 3:55:35 AM, Otokage wrote:
Note that dog breeders and broccoli farmers, do not change the DNA of the species directly, they simply SELECT the variants they want, making the species change in a certain direction. If the environment is also able to select some variants over others, then it is impossible to think that evolution does not occur.

Get a dog breeder to select for wings, and check in with him in a few decades.

You're not going to see a single wing.

But any way I could start with this:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com...
Then move to this:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com...
Then finally get this:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com...

And then a bat. Happy?

Nope. Unless you can have a dog give birth to a bird, evolution is false. Didn't you know that?

How could I not realize about that? Case closed sir!
josht
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 9:41:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 8:33:37 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 8/27/2014 7:39:08 PM, josht wrote:
Many evolutionists constantly claim that there is evidence for evolution. All of this 'evidence' can be debunked with anyone with half a brain cell.

The fossil record. I kind of understand why people see this as evidence but it makes no sense as evidence once you think about. I mean sceintists always talk about how dinosaurs turned into birds and how fish turned into amphibians but what evidence do they have of this? Theyre essentially just speculating and making blind guesses. Its like me looking at a bunch of parked cars and trying to determine at what time which car parked. I could just speculate and thats it. Its like evolution.

Also, how in the world is microvolution proof of macrovolution? Weve seen some very minor changes to organisms. This is called adaptation. But weve never, EVER seen one kind turn into another. Period.

Anything evolutionists have to say in there defense?

I've been running closely with Cinemasins, so prepare to be sinned.

-Reading
-Evolutionist is not a word
-The comparison of various species evolving into more advanced species which are better adapted to their environment is not comparable to when motor vehicles parked in a particular spot.
-Also, even if the point is just how this "is just speculation", the aspects involved in determining these two events are very different.
-Microevolution is not a word
-And macroevolution is not a word.
-Kind is not used in science as a term.
-Period.
-Evolutionist again.

Forum Sin Tally: 9

Sentence: ...

BONUS ROUND: Mistakes in spelling and grammar.

-Evolutionists +1
-sceintists +1
-Theyre +1
-thats COMBO x2
-microevolution COMBO x2
-macroevolution SUPER COMBO x3

(On fire!)

-Weve +1
-weve +1
-defense* +1

Forum Sin Tally: 147

Sentence: DEATH BY PSEUDOSCIENCE

No Forum Post Is Without Sin.
Which Forum's Sins Should We Recount Next?

*we use British spelling because we think it's more cynical.

Oh great a grammar nazi. Why dont you actually discuss the topic?
josht
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 9:46:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 9:05:24 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:52:13 AM, josht wrote:
More biased links? Ill give it a read too so I can show why that evidence isnt evidence for evolution.

You think that talkorigins is biased?

Wow... Just... Wow...

Also, just as an FYI, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist". There are people that accept that evolution is true (because of the MOUNTAINS of evidence), but that doesn't mean they are "evolutionists". What, am I a gravatationalist for accepting gravity? Am I a Big Bangist for accepting the Big Bang?

Everyone, it is confirmed, this guy is either a troll, new to debating (which is why he doesn't understand some basic concepts when talking about evolution vs creation), or a moron.

Im not sure about the site talkorigins. Ive heard of it before but didnt know it actually was evolutionist. Since it seems to support evolution how can it not be biased in some way? Even I can admit that I am sometimes biased. But there is difference between minor and major bias. Again I will read your link, but I expect that most of the "evidence" presented there wont be true evidence.

And yes evolutionist does exist.

Also why do you have to start insulting me? It seems that a lot of people think that anyone that doesnt believe what they believe must be a troll. I am not a troll. I am also not new to debating and not a moron.
josht
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 9:49:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 9:07:19 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 8/28/2014 3:55:35 AM, Otokage wrote:
Note that dog breeders and broccoli farmers, do not change the DNA of the species directly, they simply SELECT the variants they want, making the species change in a certain direction. If the environment is also able to select some variants over others, then it is impossible to think that evolution does not occur.

Get a dog breeder to select for wings, and check in with him in a few decades.

You're not going to see a single wing.

Well that may be a bit absurd of a example but you still have a point and i agree with you. Evolutionists can never EVER demonstrate evidence of one kind turning into another(like you mentioned dogs evolving into birds).
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 9:50:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 9:46:20 AM, josht wrote:
At 8/28/2014 9:05:24 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:52:13 AM, josht wrote:
More biased links? Ill give it a read too so I can show why that evidence isnt evidence for evolution.

You think that talkorigins is biased?

Wow... Just... Wow...

Also, just as an FYI, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist". There are people that accept that evolution is true (because of the MOUNTAINS of evidence), but that doesn't mean they are "evolutionists". What, am I a gravatationalist for accepting gravity? Am I a Big Bangist for accepting the Big Bang?

Everyone, it is confirmed, this guy is either a troll, new to debating (which is why he doesn't understand some basic concepts when talking about evolution vs creation), or a moron.

Im not sure about the site talkorigins. Ive heard of it before but didnt know it actually was evolutionist. Since it seems to support evolution how can it not be biased in some way? Even I can admit that I am sometimes biased. But there is difference between minor and major bias. Again I will read your link, but I expect that most of the "evidence" presented there wont be true evidence.

This shows that you are so biased that you cannot make an objective, rational decision. You have taken the stance that evolution is false, and therefore it must be false. Any site that supports evolution must be biased, which would include all peer-reviewed, scientific, online journals.

And yes evolutionist does exist.

No, it does not.

Also why do you have to start insulting me? It seems that a lot of people think that anyone that doesnt believe what they believe must be a troll. I am not a troll. I am also not new to debating and not a moron.

It is not because you don't share the same beliefs, it is because the points you are making are things that I have only seen used by the three things I have listed.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
josht
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 9:55:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 9:50:01 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/28/2014 9:46:20 AM, josht wrote:
At 8/28/2014 9:05:24 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:52:13 AM, josht wrote:
More biased links? Ill give it a read too so I can show why that evidence isnt evidence for evolution.

You think that talkorigins is biased?

Wow... Just... Wow...

Also, just as an FYI, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist". There are people that accept that evolution is true (because of the MOUNTAINS of evidence), but that doesn't mean they are "evolutionists". What, am I a gravatationalist for accepting gravity? Am I a Big Bangist for accepting the Big Bang?

Everyone, it is confirmed, this guy is either a troll, new to debating (which is why he doesn't understand some basic concepts when talking about evolution vs creation), or a moron.

Im not sure about the site talkorigins. Ive heard of it before but didnt know it actually was evolutionist. Since it seems to support evolution how can it not be biased in some way? Even I can admit that I am sometimes biased. But there is difference between minor and major bias. Again I will read your link, but I expect that most of the "evidence" presented there wont be true evidence.

This shows that you are so biased that you cannot make an objective, rational decision. You have taken the stance that evolution is false, and therefore it must be false. Any site that supports evolution must be biased, which would include all peer-reviewed, scientific, online journals.

And yes evolutionist does exist.

No, it does not.

Also why do you have to start insulting me? It seems that a lot of people think that anyone that doesnt believe what they believe must be a troll. I am not a troll. I am also not new to debating and not a moron.

It is not because you don't share the same beliefs, it is because the points you are making are things that I have only seen used by the three things I have listed.

I have decided that evolution is very unlikely due to the lack of evidence for it. I can change my mind but so far it seems impossible since no one can present enough valid evidence for it or the evidence they present is either not direct evidence(it is only 'compatible' with it) or has some problems with it. There seems to be some minor evidence for it but minor isnt enough for such a major theory.

I have looked up and evolutionist doesnt seem to exist officially but I see no reason why not to use it since the meaning is obvious. How am I supposed to call evolutionists otherwise?
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 10:05:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 9:41:15 AM, josht wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:33:37 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 8/27/2014 7:39:08 PM, josht wrote:
Many evolutionists constantly claim that there is evidence for evolution. All of this 'evidence' can be debunked with anyone with half a brain cell.

The fossil record. I kind of understand why people see this as evidence but it makes no sense as evidence once you think about. I mean sceintists always talk about how dinosaurs turned into birds and how fish turned into amphibians but what evidence do they have of this? Theyre essentially just speculating and making blind guesses. Its like me looking at a bunch of parked cars and trying to determine at what time which car parked. I could just speculate and thats it. Its like evolution.

Also, how in the world is microvolution proof of macrovolution? Weve seen some very minor changes to organisms. This is called adaptation. But weve never, EVER seen one kind turn into another. Period.

Anything evolutionists have to say in there defense?

I've been running closely with Cinemasins, so prepare to be sinned.

-Reading
-Evolutionist is not a word
-The comparison of various species evolving into more advanced species which are better adapted to their environment is not comparable to when motor vehicles parked in a particular spot.
-Also, even if the point is just how this "is just speculation", the aspects involved in determining these two events are very different.
-Microevolution is not a word
-And macroevolution is not a word.
-Kind is not used in science as a term.
-Period.
-Evolutionist again.

Forum Sin Tally: 9

Sentence: ...

BONUS ROUND: Mistakes in spelling and grammar.

-Evolutionists +1
-sceintists +1
-Theyre +1
-thats COMBO x2
-microevolution COMBO x2
-macroevolution SUPER COMBO x3

(On fire!)

-Weve +1
-weve +1
-defense* +1

Forum Sin Tally: 147

Sentence: DEATH BY PSEUDOSCIENCE

No Forum Post Is Without Sin.
Which Forum's Sins Should We Recount Next?

*we use British spelling because we think it's more cynical.

Oh great a grammar nazi. Why dont you actually discuss the topic?

Trust me, when you've been on as long as I have, you will stop taking these "original" forum threads seriously, too.

I am, however, happy to debate you on it if you want to.
RulerOfNone
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 10:08:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 8:33:37 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 8/27/2014 7:39:08 PM, josht wrote:
Many evolutionists constantly claim that there is evidence for evolution. All of this 'evidence' can be debunked with anyone with half a brain cell.

The fossil record. I kind of understand why people see this as evidence but it makes no sense as evidence once you think about. I mean sceintists always talk about how dinosaurs turned into birds and how fish turned into amphibians but what evidence do they have of this? Theyre essentially just speculating and making blind guesses. Its like me looking at a bunch of parked cars and trying to determine at what time which car parked. I could just speculate and thats it. Its like evolution.

Also, how in the world is microvolution proof of macrovolution? Weve seen some very minor changes to organisms. This is called adaptation. But weve never, EVER seen one kind turn into another. Period.

Anything evolutionists have to say in there defense?

I've been running closely with Cinemasins, so prepare to be sinned.

-Reading
-Evolutionist is not a word
-The comparison of various species evolving into more advanced species which are better adapted to their environment is not comparable to when motor vehicles parked in a particular spot.
-Also, even if the point is just how this "is just speculation", the aspects involved in determining these two events are very different.
-Microevolution is not a word
-And macroevolution is not a word.
-Kind is not used in science as a term.
-Period.
-Evolutionist again.

Forum Sin Tally: 9

Sentence: ...

BONUS ROUND: Mistakes in spelling and grammar.

-Evolutionists +1
-sceintists +1
-Theyre +1
-thats COMBO x2
-microevolution COMBO x2
-macroevolution SUPER COMBO x3

(On fire!)

-Weve +1
-weve +1
-defense* +1

Forum Sin Tally: 147

Sentence: DEATH BY PSEUDOSCIENCE

No Forum Post Is Without Sin.
Which Forum's Sins Should We Recount Next?

*we use British spelling because we think it's more cynical.

Post doesn't contain a lapdance. *Ding*

On a more serious note, it's pretty clear this guy isn't interested in debating based on evidence.